'4l 


":?■,   :■  1- 


^^'  ■•> 


;'4^^ 


% 


'^^ 


% 


Vf 


r/Si 


>~4\=J»^ 


1  i  >*->      f  M^ 


\Jo\.<^ 


•  f. 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES; 


OR 


A  VIEW  OF  THE 


EVIDENCES,  DOCTRINES,  MORALS   AND   INSTITUTIONS 


OF 


CHRISTIANITY, 


BY   RICHARD  WATSON. 


Theologi^  autem  objectum  est  ipse  Dews.— Habent  aliee  omnes  scientiae  sua  objecta, 
nohilia  certe,  et  digna  in  quibus  humana  mens  considerandis  tempus,  otium,  et  diligentiam 
adhibeat  Haec  una  circa  Ens  entmm  et  Causain  causarum,  circa  Prmapmm  naturae, 
et  crratiae  in  natura  existentis,  nature  adsistentis,  et  naturam  circumsistentis  versatur. 
Dignissimura  itaque  hoc  est  Objectum  et  plenum  venerand^  Majestatis,  praecellensque 
reliquis.  Arminius. 


COMPLETE   IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 
VOLUME  II. 


NEW.YORK, 

PUBLISHED  BY  B.  WAUGH  AND  T.  MASON, 

FOR  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL   CHURCH,  AT  THE  CONFERENCE  OFFICE, 
NO.    200   MULBERRY-STREET. 


J.  Collord,  Printer 

1834. 


PART  SECOND 

CONTKNTJED. 
f 

DOCTRINES  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

CHAPTER   XVni. 
Fall  of  Man — Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

The  Scriptural  character  of  God  having  been  adduced  from  the 
inspired  writings,  we  now  proceed,  in  pursuance  of  our  plan,  to  consider 
their  testimony  as  to  man  both  in  the  estate  in  which  he  was  first 
created,  and  in  that  lapsed  condition  into  which  the  first  act  of  dis- 
obedience plunged  the  first  pair  and  their  whole  posterity. 

Beside  that  natural  government  of  God,  which  is  exercised  over  ma- 
terial things,  over  mere  animals,  and  over  rational  beings,  considered 
merely  as  parts  of  the  great  visible  creation,  which  must  be  conser\'ed 
and  regulated  so  as  to  preserve  its  order  and  accomplish  its  natural  pur- 
poses ;  there  is  evidence  of  the  existence  of  an  administration  of  another 
kind.  This  we  call  moral  government,  because  it  has  respect  to  the 
actions  of  rational  creatures,  considered  as  good  and  evil,  which  quali- 
ties are  necessarily  determined,  at  least  to  us,  by  a  law,  and  that  law 
the  will  of  God.  Whether  things  are  good  or  evil  by  a  sort  of  eternal 
fitness  or  unfitness  in  themselves,  and  not  made  so  by  the  will  of  God, 
is  a  question  which  has  been  agitated  from  the  days  of  the  schoolmen. 
Like  many  other  similar  questions,  however,  this  is  a  profitless  one  ;  for 
as  we  cannot  comprehend  the  eternal  reason  and  fitness  of  things  on 
the  whole,  we  could  have  no  certain  means  of  determining  the  moral 
qualities  of  things,  without  a  declaration  of  the  will  of  God,  who  alone 
knows  them  both  absolutely  and  relatively,  possibly  and  really,  to  per- 
fection.  As  for  the  distinctions  that  some  things  are  good  or  evil  ante- 
cedently to  the  will  of  God ;  some  consequently  upon  it,  and  some  both 
one  and  the  other ;  it  may  be  observed  that,  if  by  the  will  of  God  we 
are  to  understand  one  of  his  attributes,  nothing  can  be  antecedent  to  his 
will ;  and  if  we  understand  it  to  mean  the  declared  will  of  God,  in  the 
form  of  command  or  law,  then  nothing  can  be  rewardable  or  punishable 
antecedent  to  the  will  of  God,  which  only  in  that  form  becomes  the  rule 
of  the  conduct  of  his  creatures ;  and  is,  in  all  the  instances  with  which 
we  are  acquainted,  revealed,  under  the  sanction  of  rewards  or  punish- 

ments. 

2 


4  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  But  is  the  will  of  God  the  cause  of  his  law  ?  Is  his  will  the  original 
of  right  and  wrong  ?  Is  a  thing  therefore  right  because  God  wills  it  ?  or 
does  he  will  it  because  it  is  right  ?  I  fear  this  celebrated  question  is  more 
curious  than  useful ;  and  perhaps,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  usually- 
treated  of,  it  does  not  w^ell  consist  with  the  regard  that  is  due  from  a 
creature  to  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  all  things.  Nevertheless,  with 
awe  and  reverence  we  may  speak  a  little. 

*'  It  seems  then  that  the  whole  difficulty  arises  from  considering  God's 
will  as  distinct  from  God.  Otherwise  it  vanishes  away  :  for  none  can 
doubt  but  God  is  the  cause  of  the  law  of  God.  But  the  will  of  God  is 
God  himself.  It  is  God  considered  as  willing  thus  and  thus ;  conse- 
quently to  say  that  the  will  of  God,  or  that  God  himself  is  the  cause  of 
law,  is  one  and  the  same  thing. 

"  Again  :  if  the  law,  the  immutable  rule  of  right  and  wrong,  depends 
on  the  nature  and  fitness  of  things,  and  on  their  essential  relations  to 
each  other :  (I  do  not  say  their  eternal  relations,  because  the  eternal 
relations  of  things  existing  in  time  is  little  less  than  a  contradiction  :)  if 
I  say  this  depends  on  the  nature  and  relations  of  things,  then  it  must 
depend  on  God,  or  the  will  of  God ;  because  those  things  themselves, 
with  all  their  relations,  are  the  work  of  his  hands.  By  his  will,  for  his 
pleasure  alone,  they  are  and  were  created.  And  yet  it  may  be  granted, 
which  is,  probably,  all  that  a  considerate  person  would  contend  for,  that 
in  every  particular  case  God  wills  thus  or  thus,  (suppose  that  men  should 
honour  their  parents,)  because  it  is  right,  agreeable  to  the  fitness  of 
things,  to  the  relation  in  which  they  stand."  [Wesley.) 

All  the  moral  and  accountable  creatures  with  which  the  Scriptures 
make  us  acquainted  are  angels,  devils,  and  men.  The  first  are 
inhabitants  of  heaven,  and  dwell  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God, 
though  often  employed  on  services  to  the  children  of  men  in  this  world. 
The  second  are  represented  as  being  in  darkness  and  punishment  as 
their  general  and  collective  condition,  but  still  having  access  to  this 
world  by  permission  of  God,  for  purposes  of  temptation  and  mischief, 
and  as  waiting  for  a  final  judgment  and  a  heavier  doom.  Whether  any- 
other  rational  beings  exist,  not  included  in  any  of  the  above  classes, 
dwelling  in  the  planets  and  other  celestial  bodies,  and  regions  of  space, 
visible  or  invisible  to  us,  and  collectively  forming  an  immensely  extended 
and  immeasurable  creation,  cannot  be  certainly  determined  ;  and  all  that 
can  be  said  is,  that  the  opinion  is  favoured  by  certain  natural  analogies 
between  the  planet  we  inhabit  and  other  planetary  bodies,  and  between 
our  sun  and  planetary  system  and  the  fixed  stars,  which  are  deemed  to 
be  solar  centres  of  other  planetary  systems.  But  were  this  established, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  fact,  as  some  have  supposed,  to  interfere  with 
any  view  which  the  Scriptures  give  us  of  the  moral  government  of  God 
as  to  this  world,  (^ee  vol.  i,p.  206.)  Were  our  race  alone  in  the  universe, 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  5 

we  should  not  be  greater  than  we  are ;  if,  on  the  contrary,  we  are 
associated  with  countless  myriads  of  fellow  rationals  in  different  and  dis- 
tinct residences,  we  are  not  thereby  minified.  If  they  are  under  moral 
government,  so  are  we ;  if  they  are  not,  which  no  one  can  prove,  the 
evidences  that  we  are  accountable  creatures  remain  the  same.  If  they 
have  never  fallen,  the  fact  of  our  redemption  cannot  be  affected  by  that ; 
and  if  they  need  a  Saviour,  we  may  well  leave  the  method  of  providing 
for  their  case  or  the  reasons  of  their  pretention  to  the  wisdom  of  God  ; 
it  is  a  fact  which  we  have  not  before  us,  and  on  which  we  cannot  rea- 
son. No  sinister  use  at  all  can  be  made  of  the  mere  probability  of  the 
plurality  of  rational  worlds,  except  to  persuade  us  that  we  are  so  little 
and  insignificant  as  to  make  it  a  vain  presumption  to  suppose  that  we  are 
the  objects  of  Divine  love.  But  nothing  can  be  even  more  unphilo- 
sophical  than  the  suggestion,  since  it  supposes  that,  in  proportion  as  the 
common  Father  multiplies  his  offspring,  he  must  love  each  individual 
less,  or  be  more  inattentive  to  his  interests ;  and  because  it  estimates 
the  importance  of  man  by  the  existence  of  beings  to  which  he  has  no 
relation,  rather  than  by  his  relation  to  God,  and  his  own  capacity  of 
improvement,  pleasure,  pain,  and  immortality.  According  to  this  absurd 
dream  of  infidelity,  every  individual  in  the  British  empire  would  annu- 
ally lose  his  weight  and  worth  in  the  sight  of  his  Maker  as  a  moral 
and  intellectual  being,  because  there  is  a  great  annual  increase  of  its 
population. 

The  LAW  under  which  all  moral  agents  are  placed,  there  is  reason  to 
believe,  is  substantially,  and  in  its  great  principles,  the  same,  and  is 
included  in  this  epitome,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  \\  ith  all 
thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all 
thy  mind,  and  thy  neighbour  as  thyself." — For  though  this  is  spoken  to 
men,  yet,  as  it  is  founded,  in  both  its  parts,  upon  the  natural  relation  of 
every  intelligent  creature  to  God  and  to  all  other  intelligent  creatures, 
it  may  be  presumed  to  be  universal.     Every  creature  owes  obedience 
to  God  its  Maker,  and  a  benevolent  Creator  could  only  seek,  in  the  first 
instance,  the  obedience  of  love.     Every  creature  must,  from  a  revealed 
character  of  the  Creator,  be  concluded  to  have  been  made  not  only  to 
show  forth  his  glory,  but  itself  to  enjoy  happiness.     Now  the  love  of 
God  is  that  affection  which  unites  a  created  intelligent  nature  to  God, 
the  source  of  true  happiness,  and  prevents,  in  all  cases,  obedience  from 
being  felt  as  a  burden,  or  regarded  under  the  cold  convictions  of  mere 
duty.     If,  therefore,  a  cheerful  obedience  from  the  creature  be  required 
as  that  which  would  constantly  promote  by  action  the  felicity  of  the 
agent,  this  law  of  love  is  to  be  considered  as  the  law  of  all  moral  beings, 
whether  of  angels  or  of  men.     Its  comprehensiveness  is  another  pre- 
sumption of  its  universality ;  for,  unquestionably,  it  is  a  maxim  of  uni- 
versal import,  that  « love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,"  since  he  who  loves 

2 


Q  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

must  choose  to  be  obedient  to  ever>'  command  issued  by  the  sovereign, 
or  the  Father  beloved ;  and  when  this  love  is  supreme  and  uniform,  the 
obedience  must  be  absolute  and  unceasing.  The  second  command  is 
also  "  like  unto  it"  in  these  respects — it  founds  itself  on  the  natural 
relations  which  exist  among  the  creatures  of  God,  and  it  comprehends 
every  possible  relative  duty.  All  intelligent  creatures  were  intended  to 
live  in  society.  We  read  of  no  solitary  rational  being  being  placed  in 
any  part  of  the  creation.  Angels  are  many,  and,  from  all  the  repre- 
sentations  of  Scripture,  may  be  considered  as  forming  one  or  more  col- 
lective bodies.  When  man  was  created  it  was  decided  that  it  was  not 
good  for  him  to  be  alone,  and  when  "  a  help  meet  for  him"  was  provided, 
they  were  commanded  to  be  fruitful  and  multiply,  that  the  number  might 
be  increased  and  the  earth  "  replenished."  The  very  precepts  which 
obhge  us  to  love  one  another  are  presumptive  that  it  was  the  will  of  God, 
not  merely  that  his  rational  creatures  should  live  in  society  and  do  no 
injury  to  each  other,  but  that  they  should  be  "  kindly  affectionate  one 
toward  another ;"  a  principle  from  which  all  acts  of  relative  duty  would 
spontaneously  (low,  and  which  would  guard  against  all  hostility,  envj^ 
and  injury.  Thus,  by  these  two  great  first  principles  of  the  Divine  law, 
the  rational  creatures  of  God  would  be  united  to  him  as  their  common 
Lord  and  Father,  and  to  each  other  as  fellow  subjects  and  brethren. 
This  view  is  farther  supported  by  the  intimations  which  the  Scriptures 
afford  us  of  the  moral  state  of  the  only  other  intelligent  class  of  beings 
beside  man  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  Angels  are  constantly  ex- 
hibited as  loving  God,  jealous  of  his  glory,  and  cheerfully  active  in  the 
execution  of  his  will ;  as  benevolent  toward  each  other,  and  as  tenderly 
affected  toward  men.  Devils,  on  the  contrary,  who  are  "the  angels 
that  sinned,"  are  represented  as  filled  with  hatred  and  malice  both  toward 
God  and  every  .holy  creature. 

Indeed,  if  rational  beings  are  under  a  law  at  all,  it  cannot  be 
conceived  that  less  than  this  could  be  required  by  the  good  and  holy 
being,  their  Creator.  They  are  bound  to  render  all  love,  honour,  and 
obedience  to  him  by  a  natural  and  absolute  obligation ;  and,  as  it  has 
been  demonstrated  in  the  experience  of  man,  any  thing  less  would  be 
not  only  contrary  to  the  Creator's  glory,  but  fatal  to  the  creature's 
happiness.  ^ 

From  these  views  it  follows,  that  all  particular  precepts,  whether  they 
relate  to  God  or  to  other  rational  creatures,  arise  out  of  one  or  other 
of  those  two  "  great"  and  comprehending  "  commandments ;"  and  that 
every  particular  law  supposes  the  general  one.  For  as  in  the  deca- 
logue  and  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  many  particular  precepts, 
though  in  neither  are  these  two  great  commandments  expressly  recorded, 
and  yet  our  Saviour  has  told  us  that  "  on  these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets ;"  and  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  the 


SECOXD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  7 

precepts,  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  adiilter}%  thou  shalt  not  kill,  thou 
shait  not  steal,  thou  shalt  not  covet,  and  if  there  be  any  other  command- 
ment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself;"  we  are  warranted  to  conclude  that  all  moral, 
particular  precepts  presuppose  those  two  general  ones,  wherever  they 
are  found,  and  to  whomsoever  they  are  given. 

We  may  apply  this  consideration  to  our  first  parents  in  their  primi- 
tive state.  When  the  law  of  Moses  was  given,  engraven  on  tables  of 
stone  by  the  finger  of  God,  law  was  not  Jirst  introduced  into  the  world. 
Men  were  accounted  righteous  or  wicked  between  the  giving  of  the 
law  and  the  flood,  and  before  the  flood,  and  were  dealt  with  9,ccord- 
ingly.  Noah  was  "  a  righteous  man,"  and  the  "  violence  and  wicked- 
ness" of  the  antediluvian  earth  were  the  causes  of  its  destruction  by 
water.  "  Enoch  walked  with  God  ;"  Abel  was  "  righteous,"  and 
Cain  "wicked."  Now  as  the  moral  quality  of  actions  is  determined  by 
Jaw,  and  the  moral  law  is  a  revelation  of  the  will  of  God ;  and  as  every 
punitive  act  on  his  part,  and  every  bestowment  of  rewards  and  favours 
expressly  on  account  of  righteousness,  suppose  a  regal  administration ; 
men  were  under  a  law  up  to  the  time  of  the  fall,  which  law,  in  all  its 
particular  precepts,  did,  according  to  the  reasoning  of  our  Lord  and  St. 
Paul,  given  above,  presuppose  the  two  great  commandments.  That  our 
first  parents  were  under  a  law,  is  evident  from  the  history  of  the  trans- 
actions in  the  garden  ;  but,  though  but  one  particular  command,  in  the 
form  of  a  prohibition,  was  given,  we  are  not  to  conclude  that  this  was 
the  compass  of  their  requirements,  and  the  sole  measure  of  their  obe- 
dience. It  was  a  particular  command,  which,  like  those  in  the  deca- 
logue, and  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  presupposed  a  general  law, 
of  which  this  was  but  one  manifestation.  Thus  are  we  conducted  to  a 
more  ancient  date  of  the  Divine  law  than  the  solemnities  of  Sinai,  or 
even  the  creation  of  man,  a  law  coeval  in  its  declaration  with  the  date 
of  rational  created  existence,  and  in  its  principles  with  God  himself. — 
"  The  law  of  God,  speaking  of  the  manner  of  men,  is  a  copy  of  the 
eternal  mind,  a  transcript  of  the  Divine  nature ;  yea,  it  is  the  fairest 
ofl?spring  of  the  everlasting  Father,  the  brightest  efflux  of  his  essential 
wisdom,  the  visible  beauty  of  the  Most  High  ;  the  original  idea  of  truth 
and  good  which  were  lodged  in  the  uncreated  mind  from  eternity." 
[Wesley.)     It  is  "  holy,  just,  and  good" 

Under  this  condition  of  rational  existence  must  Adam,  therefore,  and 
every  other  moral  agent  have  come  into  being,  a  condition,  of  course,  to 
which  he  could  not  be  a  party,  to  which  he  had  no  right  to  be  a  party, 
had  it  been  possible,  but  which  was  laid  upon  him ;  he  was  made  under 
law,  as  all  his  descendants  are  born  under  law.  (8) 

(8)  The  covenant  of  works,  a  term  much  in  use  among  divines,  is  one  which 
is  not  in  so  much  use  as  formerly  ;  but,  rightly  understood,  it  has  a  good  sense. 

2 


%  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

But  that  we  may  more  exactly  understand  man's  primitive  state, 
considered  morally,  and  the  nature,  extent,  and  consequences  of  his  fall, 
it  is  necessary  to  consider  briefly  the  history  of  his  creation. 

The  manner  in  which  this  is  narrated  indicates  something  peculiar 
and  eminent  in  the  being  to  be  formed.  In  the  heavenly  bodies  around 
the  earth,  and  among  all  the  various  productions  of  its  surface,  vegeta- 
ble and  animal,  however  perfect  in  their  kinds,  and  complete,  beautiful, 
and  excellent  in  their  respective  natures,  not  one  being  was  found  to 
whom  the  rest  could  minister  instruction,  whom  they  could  call  forth 
into  meditation,  inspire  with  moral  delight,  or  lead  up  to  the  Creator 
himself.  There  was,  properly  speaking,  no  intellectual  being  ;  none  to 
whom  the  whole,  or  even  any  great  number  of  the  parts,  of  the  frame 
and  furniture  of  material  nature  could  minister  knowledge  ;  no  one  who 
could  employ  upon  them  the  generalizing  faculty,  and  make  them  the 
basis  of  inductive  knowledge.  If,  then,  it  was  not  wholly  for  himself 
that  the  world  was  created  by  God ;  and  angels,  if  they,  as  it  is  indi- 
cated in  Scripture,  had  a  prior  existence,  were  not  so  immediately  con- 
nected with  this  system,  that  it  can  be  supposed  to  have  been  made 
immediately  for  them ;  a  rational  inhabitant  was  obviously  still  wanting 
to  complete  the  work,  and  to  constitute  a  perfect  whole.  The  forma- 
tion of  such  a  being  was  marked,  therefore,  by  a  manner  of  proceeding 
which  serves  to  impress  us  with  a  sense  of  the  greatness  of  the  work. 
Not  that  it  could  be  a  matter  of  more  difficulty  to  Omnipotence  to  cre- 
ate man  than  any  thing  beside  ;  but  principally,  it  is  probable,  because 
he  was  to  be  the  lord  of  the  whole,  and  to  be,  therefore,  himself 
accountable  to  the  original  proprietor,  and  to  exhibit  the  existence  of 
another  species  of  government,  a  moral  administration ;  and  to  be  the 
only  creature  constituted  an  image  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  perfec 
tions,  and  of  the  immortaUty  of  the  common  Maker.  Every  thing, 
therefore,  as  to  man's  creation  is  given  in  a  solemn  and  deliberative 
form,  together  with  an  intimation  of  a  trinity  of  persons  in  the  God- 
head,  all  Divine,  because  all  equally  possessed  of  creative  power,  and 
to  each  of  whom  man  was  to  stand  in  relations  so  sacred  and  intimate. 
"  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness  ; 
and  let  them  have  dominion,"  &;c.  In  what,  then,  did  this  "  iwa^e" 
and  "  likeness''^  consist  ? 

That  human  nature  has  two  essential,  constituent  parts  is  manifest 
from  the   history  of  Moses  : — the  body,  formed  out  of  pre-existent 

The  word  usually  translated  covenant  in  the  New  Testament,  more  properly 
signifies  a  dispensation  or  appointment,  which  is,  indeed,  suited  to  the  majesty 
of  law,  and  even  the  authoritative  establishment  of  a  sole  method  of  par- 
don. But  in  both  there  are  parties,  not  to  their  original  institution,  but  to 
their  beneficent  accomplishment,  and  in  this  view  each  may  be  termed  a 
covenant. 
o 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  9 

matter,  the  earth ;  and  a  living  soul,  breathed  into  the  body,  by  an 
inspiration  from  God.  "  And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  out  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  (or  face)  the  breath 
of  hfe,  (lives,)  and  man  became  a  hving  soul."  Whatever  was  thus 
imparted  to  the  body  of  man,  already  ^^forjned,"  and  perfectly  fashioned 
in  all  its  parts,  was  the  only  cause  of  life ;  and  the  whole  tenor  of 
Scripture  shows  that  that  was  the  rational  spirit  itself,  which,  by  a  law 
of  its  Creator,  was  incapable  of  death,  even  after  the  body  had  fallen 
under  that  penalty. 

The  "  image"  or  Hkeness  of  God  in  which  man  was  made,  has,  by 
some,  been  assigned  to  the  body ;  by  others,  to  the  soul ;  others,  again 
have  found  it  in  the  circumstance  of  his  having  "  dominion'''  over  the 
other  creatures.  As  to  the  body,  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  up  any 
large  space  to  prove,  that  in  no  sense  can  that  bear  the  image  of  God, 
that  is,  be  *'  Zi^e"  God.  Descant  ever  so  much  or  ever  so  poetically 
upon  man's  upright  and  noble  form,  an  upright  form  has  no  more  like- 
ness to  God  than  a  prone  or  reptile  one ;  God  is  incorporeal,  and  has 
no  bodily  shape  to  be  the  antitype  of  any  thing  material. 

This  also  is  fatal  to  the  notion  that  the  image  of  God  in  man  con- 
sisted in  the  "dominion"  which  was  granted  to  him  over  this  lower 
world.  Limited  dominion  may,  it  is  true,  be  an  image  of  large  and 
absolute  dominion,  but  man  is  not  said  to  have  been  made  in  the  image 
of  God's  dominion,  which  is  an  accident  merely,  for,  before  any 
creatures  existed,  God  himself  could  have  no  dominion ;  but  in  the 
image  and  likeness  of  God  himself, — of  something  which  constitutes  his 
nature.  Still  farther,  man,  according  to  the  history^  was  evidently 
made  in  the  image  of  God,  in  order  to  his  having  dominion,  as  the 
Hebrew  particle  imports.  He  who  was  to  have  dominion,  must,  neces- 
sarily, be  made  before  he  could  be  invested  with  it,  and,  therefore, 
dominion  was  consequent  to  his  existing  in  the  "  image"  and  "  likeness" 
of  God  ;  and  could  not  be  that  image  itself. 

The  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  fix  upon  some  one  essential 
quality  in  which  to  place  that  "image"  of  God  in  which  man  was 
created,  is  not  only  uncalled  for  by  any  Scriptural  reason,  but  is  even 
contradicted  by  various  parts  of  Scripture,  from  which,  alone,  we  can 
derive  our  information  on  this  subject.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  this 
"  image"  must  be  something  essential  to  human  nature,  something  only 
which  cannot  be  lost.  We  shall,  it  is  true,  find  that  the  revelation  places 
it  in  v/hat  is  essential  to  human  nature  ;  but  that  it  should  comprehend 
nothing  else,  or  one  quality  only,  has  no  proof  or  reason ;  and  we  are, 
in  fact,  taught  that  it  comprises  also  what  is  not  essential  to  human 
nature,  and  what  may  be  lost  and  be  regained.  As  to  both,  the  evi- 
dence of  Scripture  is  exphcit.  When  God  is  called  "  the  Father  of 
spirits,"  a  likeness  is  certainly  intimated  between  man  and  God  in  the 

2 


10  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

spirituality  of  their  nature.  This  is  also  impHed  in  the  striking  argu- 
ment of  St.  Paul  with  the  Athenians.  "  Forasmuch,  then,  as  we  are 
the  OFFSPRING  of  God,  we  ought  not  to  think  that  the  Godhead  is  Uke 
unto  gold,  or  silver,  or  stone,  graven  by  art,  and  man's  device,"  plainly- 
referring  to  the  idolatrous  statues  by  which  God  was  represented 
among  heathens.  If  likeness  to  God  in  man  consisted  in  bodily 
shape,  this  would  not  have  been  an  argument  against  human  represent, 
ations  of  the  Deity,  but  it  imports,  as  Howe  well  expresses  it,  that  "  we 
are  to  understand  that  our  resemblance  to  him,  as  we  are  his  offspring, 
lies  in  some  higher,  more  noble,  and  more  excellent  thing,  of  which 
there  can  be  no  figure,  as  who  can  tell  how  to  give  the  figure  or  image 
of  a  thought,  or  of  the  mind  or  thinking  power."  In  spirituality,  and, 
consequently,  immateriality,  this  image  of  God  in  man,  then,  in  the  first 
existence,  consists.  Nor  is  it  any  valid  objection  to  say  that  "  immate- 
riality is  not  peculiar  to  the  soul  of  man,  for  we  have  reason  to  believe 
that  the  inferior  animals  of  the  earth  are  actuated  by  an  immaterial 
principle."  (Gleig's  Stackhouse.)  This  is  as  certain  as  analogy  can 
make  it :  but  if  we  allow  a  spiritual  principle  to  animals,  its  kind  is 
obviously  inferior  ;  for  the  spirit  which  is  incapable  of  continuous  induc- 
tion and  moral  knowledge,  must  be  of  an  inferior  order  to  the  spirit 
which  possesses  these  capabilities ;  and  this  is  the  kind  of  spirituality 
which  is  peculiar  to  man. 

The  sentiment  expressed  in  Wisdom  ii,  23,  is  evidence  that,  in  the  opi- 
nion of  the  ancient  Jews,  the  image  of  God  in  man  comprised  immortality 
also.  "  For  God  created  man  to  be  immortal,  and  made  him  to  be  an  image 
of  his  own  eternity ;"  and  though  other  creatures,  and  even  the  body  of 
man  were  made  capable  of  immortality,  and  at  least  the  material  human 
frame,  whatever  we  may  think  of  the  case  of  animals,  would  have  escaped 
death,  had  not  sin  entered  the  world,  yet,  without  running  into  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  "  natural  immortality"  of  the  human  soul,  that  essence 
must  have  been  constituted  immortal  in  a  high  and  peculiar  sense,  which 
has  ever  retained  its  prerogative  of  eternal  duration  amidst  the  universal 
death,  not  only  of  animals,  but  -of  the  bodies  of  all  human  beings.  To 
me  there  appears  a  manifest  allusion  to  man's  immortality,  as  being 
included  in  the  image  of  God,  in  the  reason  which  is  given  in  Genesis 
for  the  law  which  inflicts  death  on  m-irderers.  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's 
blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  she-. :  for  in  the  image  of  God  made  he 
man."  The  essence  of  the  crime  of  homicide  cannot  be  in  the  putting 
to  death  the  mere  animal  part  of  man  ;  and  must,  therefore,  lie  in  the 
peculiar  value  of  life  to  an  immortal  being,  accountable  in  another  state 
for  the  actions  done  in  this,  and  whose  life  ought  to  be  specially 
guarded,  for  this  very  reason,  that  death  introduces  him  into  changeless 
and  eternal  relations,  which  were  not  to  lie  at  the  sport  or  mercy  of 
human  passion?. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  H 

To  these  we  are  o  add  the  intellectual  powers,  and  we  have  what 
divines  have  called,  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  the  natural 
image  of  God  in  his  creature,  which  is  essential  and  ineffaceable.  He 
was  made  capable  of  knowledge,  and  he  was  endowed  with  hberty  of  will. 

This  natural  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created,  was  the  founda- 
tion of  that  MORAL  IMAGE  by  which  also  he  was  distinguished.  Unless 
he  had  been  a  spiritual,  knowing,  and  willing  being,  he  would  have  been 
wholly  incnpu'ilo  of  inoral  qualities.  That  he  had  such  qualities  emi- 
nently, and  that  in  them  consisted  the  image  of  God,  as  well  as  in  the 
natural  attributes  just  stated,  we  have  also  the  express  testimony  of 
Scripture.  "  Lo  this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  made  man  upright, 
but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions."  The  objections  taken  to  this 
proof  are  thus  satisfactorily  answered  by  President  Edwards  : — 

"  It  is  an  observation  of  no  weight  which  Dr.  Taylor  makes  on  this 
text,  that  the  word  7nan  is  commonly  used  to  signify  mankind  in  general, 
or  mankind  collectively  taken.  It  is  true,  it  often  signifies  the  species 
of  mankind ;  but  then  it  is  used  to  signify  the  species,  with  regard  to 
its  duration  and  succession  from  its  beginning,  as  well  as  with  regard  to 
its  extent.  The  English  word  mankind  is  used  to  signify  the  species  : 
but  what  then  ?  Would  it  be  an  improper  way  of  speaking,  to  say,  that 
when  God  first  made  mankind,  he  placed  them  in  a  pleasant  paradise, 
(meaning  in  their  first  parents,)  but  now  they  live  in  the  midst  of  briers 
and  thorns?  And  it  is  certain,  that  to  speak  thus  of  God  making  man- 
kind, — his  giving  the  species  an  existence  in  their  first  parents,  at  the 
creation, — is  agreeable  to  the  Scripture  use  of  such  an  expression. 
As  in  Deut.  iv,  32,  '  Since  the  day  that  God  created  man  wpon  the 
earth.''  Job  xx,  4,  ^Knowest  thou  not  this  of  old,  since  man  was  placed 
upon  the  earth."*  Isaiah  xlv,  12,  '  7  have  made  the  earth,  and  created 
MAN  upon  it :  I,  even  my  hands,  have  stretched  out  the  heavens.*  Jer. 
xxvii,  5,  '  I  HAVE  aiADE  the  earth,  the  man  and  the  beast  that  are  upon  the 
ground,  by  my  great  power.*  All  these  texts  speak  of  God  making  man, 
signifying  the  species  of  mankind  ;  and  yet  they  all  plainly  have  respect 
to  God  making  man  at  first,  when  he  '  made  the  earth,*  '  and  stretched  out 
the  heavens.*  In  all  these  places  the  same  word,  Adam,  is  used  as  in 
Ecclesiastes ;  and  in  the  last  of  these,  used  with  (he  emphaticum)  the 
emphatic  sign,  as  here  ;  though  Dr.  T.  omits  it  when  he  tells  us  he  gives 
us  a  catalogue  of  all  the  places  in  Scripture  where  the  word  is  used.  And 
it  argues  nothing  to  the  doctor's  purpose,  that  the  pronoun  they  is  used, — 
*  They  have  sought  out  many  inventions.*  This  is  properly  applied  to 
the  species,  which  God  made  at  first  upright ;  the  species  begun  with 
more  than  one,  and  continued  in  a  multitude.  As  Christ  speaks  of  the 
two  sexes,  in  the  relation  of  man  and  wife,  continued  in  successive  gene- 
rations. Matt,  xix,  4,  '  He  that  made  them  at  the  beginning,  made 
them  male  and  female,*  having  reference  to  Adam  and  Eve. 

3 


12  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  No  less  impertinent,  and  also  very  unfair,  is  his  criticism  on  the  word 
( "ir' )  translated  vpright.  Because  the  word  sometimes  signifies  rights 
he  M  ould  from  thence  infer,  that  it  does  not  properly  signify  moral  recti- 
tude,  even  when  used  to  express  the  character  of  moral  agents.  He 
might  as  well  insist,  that  the  English  word  wpright,  sometimes,  and  in  its 
most  original  meaning,  signifies  right-up,  or  in  an  erect  posture,  therefore 
it  does  not  properly  signify  any  moral  character,  when  applied  to  moral 
agents.  And  indeed  less  unreasonably ;  for  it  is  known  that  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  most  words  used  to  signify  moral 
and  spiritual  things,  are  taken  from  external  and  natural  objects.  The 
word  ("iw")  Jashur  is  used,  as  applied  to  moral  agents,  or  to  the  words 
and  actions  of  such,  (if  I  have  not  misreckoned,)  about  a  hundred  and 
ten  times  in  Scripture  ;  and  in  about  a  hundred  of  them,  without  all  dis- 
pute,  to  signify  virtue,  or  moral  rectitude,  (though  Dr.  T.  is  pleased  to 
say,  the  word  does  not  generally  signify  a  moral  character,)  and  for  the 
most  part  it  signifies  true  virtue,  or  virtue  in  such  a  sense  as  distinguishes 
it  from  all  false  appearances  of  virtue,  or  what  is  only  virtue  in  some 
respects,  but  not  truly  so  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  used  at  least  eighty 
times  in  this  sense  :  and  scarce  any  word  can  be  found  in  the  Hebrew 
language  more  significant  of  this.  It  is  thus  used  constantly  in  Solo, 
rnon's  writings,  (where  it  is  often  found,)  when  used  to  express  a  character 
or  property  of  moral  agents.  And  it  is  beyond  all  controversy  that  he 
uses  it  in  this  place,  (the  seventh  of  Eccles.)  to  signify  moral  rectitude,  or 
a  character  of  real  virtue  and  integrity.  For  the  wise  man  is  speaking 
of  persons  with  respect  to  their  moral  character,  inquiring  into  the  cor- 
ruption and  depravity  of  mankind,  (as  is  confessed  by  Dr.  T.)  and  he 
here  declares,  he  had  not  found  one  among  a  thousand  of  the  right  stamp, 
truly  and  thoroughly  virtuous  and  upright :  which  appeared  a  strange 
thing !  But  in  this  text  he  clears  God,  and  lays  the  blame  on  man  : 
man  was  not  made  thus  at  first.  He  was  made  of  the  right  stamp, 
altogether  good  in  his  kind,  (as  all  other  things  were,)  truly  and  tho- 
roughly virtuous,  as  he  ought  to  be  ;  '  but  they  have  sought  out  many 
inventions.''  Which  last  expression  signifies  things  sinful,  or  morally 
evil ;  (as  is  confessed  p.  185.)  And  this  expression  used  to  signify  those 
moral  evils  he  found  in  man,  which  he  sets  in  opposition  to  the  upright- 
ness man  was  made  in,  shows,  that  by  uprightness  he  means  the  most 
true  and  sincere  goodness.  The  word  rendered  inventions,  most  natu- 
rally and  aptly  signifies  the  subtle  devices,  and  crooked  deceitful  ways  of 
hypocrites,  wherein  they  are  of  a  character  contrary  to  men  of  sim- 
plicity and  godly  sincerity ;  who,  though  wise  in  that  which  is  good, 
are  simple  concerning  evil.  Thus  the  same  wise  man,  in  Prov.  xii,  6, 
sets  a  truly  good  man  in  opposition  to  a  man  of  wicked  devices,  whom 
God  will  condemn.  Solomon  had  occasion  to  observe  many  who  put  on 
an  artful  disguise  and  fair  show  of  goodness  ;  but  on  searching  thoroughly, 
-4 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  13 

he  found  very  few  truly  upright.  As  he  says,  Prov.  xx,  6,  '  Most  men 
will  proclaim  every  one  his  own  goodness  :  but  a  faithful  man  who  can 
find  V  so  that  it  is  exceeding  plain,  that  by  uprightness,  in  this  place, 
Eccles.  vii,  Solomon  means  true  moral  goodness."  [Original  Sin.) 

There  is  also  an  express  allusion  to  the  moral  image  of  God,  in  which 
man  was  at  first  created,  in  Col.  iii,  10,  "  And  have  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  Him  that  created 
him  ;"  and,  in  Eph.  iv,  24,  "Put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is 
created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  In  these  passages  the 
apostle  represents  the  change  produced  in  true  Christians  by  the  Gospel, 
as  a  "  renewal"  of  the  image  of  God  in  man  ;  as  a  new  or  second  creation 
in  that  image ;  and  he  exphcitly  declares,  that  that  image  consists  in 
"  knowledge,"  in  "  righteousness,"  and  in  "  true  hohness."  The  import 
of  these  terms  shall  be  just  now  considered  ;  but  it  is  here  sufficient  that 
they  contain  the  doctrine  of  a  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of  the  moral 
perfections  of  his  Maker. 

This  also  may  be  finally  argued  from  the  satisfaction  with  which  the 
historian  of  the  creation  represents  the  Creator  as  viewing  the  works 
of  his  hands  as  '^  very  good."  This  is  pronounced  with  reference  to  each 
individually,  as  well  as  to  the  whole.  "  And  God  saw  every  thing  that 
he  had  made,  and  behold  it  was  very  good."  But,  as  to  man,  this  good- 
ness must  necessarily  imply  moral  as  well  as  physical  qualities.  With- 
out them  he  would  have  been  imperfect  as  7nan ;  and  had  they  existed 
in  him,  in  their  first  exercises,  perverted  and  sinful,  he  must  have  been 
an  exception,  and  could  not  have  been  pronounced  "  very  good."  The 
goodness  of  man,  as  a  rational  being,  must  he  in  a  devotedness  and  con- 
secration to  God  ;  consequently,  man  was  at  first  devoted  to  God,  other- 
wise he  was  not  good.  A  rational  creature,  as  such,  is  capable  of  knowing, 
loving,  serving,  and  living  in  communion  with  the  Most  Holy  One. 
Adam,  at  first,  did,  or  did  not  use  this  capacity ;  if  he  did  not,  he  was 
not  very  good,  nor  good  at  all. 

As  to  the  degree  of  moral  perfection  in  the  first  man,  much  scope  has 
been  given,  in  describing  it,  to  a  warm  imagination,  and  to  much 
rhetorical  embellishment ;  and  Adam's  perfection  has  sometimes  been 
placed  at  an  elevation  which  renders  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  conceive 
how  he  should  fall  into  sin  at  all ;  and  especially  how  he  should  fall  so 
soon  as  seems  to  be  represented  in  the  narrative  of  Moses.  On  the  other 
hand,  those  who  ehher  deny  or  hold  very  slightly  the  doctrine  of  our  here- 
ditary  depravity,  delight  to  represent  Adam,  as  little,  if  at  all,  superior  in 
moral  perfection  and  capability  to  his  descendants.  But,  if  we  attend 
to  the  passages  of  Holy  Writ  above  quoted,  we  shall  be  able,  on  this  sub- 
ject, to  ascertain,  if  not  the  exact  degree  of  his  moral  endowments,  yet 
that  there  is  a  certain  standard  below  which  he  could  not  be  placed,  in 
the  perfection  of  his  moral  endowments.     Generally,  he  was  made  in  the 

2 


14  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

image  of  God  which  we  have  already  proved  is  to  be  understood  morally 
as  well  as  Tiaturally.  Now,  however  the  image  of  any  thing  may 
be  reduced  in  extent,  it  must  still  be  an  accurate  representation  as 
far  as  it  goes.  Every  thing  good  in  the  creation  must  always  be  a 
miniature  representation  of  the  excellence  of  the  Creator ;  but,  in  this 
case,  the  "  goodness,"  that  is,  the  perfection  of  every  creature,  according 
to  the  part  it  was  designed  to  act  in  the  general  assemblage  of  beings 
collected  into  our  system,  wholly  forbids  us  to  suppose  that  the  image  of 
God's  moral  perfections  in  man  was  a  blurred  and  dim  representation. 
To  whatever  exte?it  it  went,  it  necessarily  excluded  all  that  from  man 
which  did  not  resemble  God  ;  it  w  as  a  Hkeness  to  God  in  "  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness,"  whatever  the  degree  of  each  might  be,  which 
excluded  all  admixture  of  unrighteousness  and  unhohness.  The  first 
part  of  our  conclusion,  therefore,  is,  that  man,  in  his  original  state,  was 
ginless,  both  in  act  and  in  principle.  "  God  made  man  upright."  That 
this  signifies  moral  rectitude  has  been  already  established ;  but  the  im- 
port of  the  word  is  very  extensive.  It  expresses,  by  an  easy  figure,  the 
exactness  of  truth,  justice,  and  obedience  ;  and  it  comprehends  the  state 
and  habit  both  of  the  heart  and  the  life.  Such,  then,  was  the  state  of  pri- 
mitive man  ;  there  was  no  obliquity  of  his  moral  principles,  his  mind  and 
affecfions  ;  none  in  his  conduct.  He  was  perfectly  sincere  and  exactly 
just,  rendering  from  the  heart  all  that  was  due  to  God  and  to  the  crea- 
ture. Tried  by  the  exactest  plummet,  he  was  upright;  by  the  most 
perfect  rule,  he  was  straight. 

The  "  knowledge^^  in  which  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  passage  quoted 
above  from  Colos.  iii,  10,  places  "the  image  of  God"  after  which  man 
was  created,  does  not  merely  imply  the  faculty  of  the  understanding, 
which  is  a  part  of  the  natural  image  of  God ;  but  that  which  might  be 
lost,  because  it  is  that  in  which  the  new  man  is  "  renewed.^^  It  is,  there- 
fore, to  be  understood  of  the  faculty  of  knowledge  in  the  right  exercise 
of  its  original  power  ;  and  of  that  willing  reception,  and  firm  retaining, 
and  hearty  approval  of  religious  truth,  in  which  knowledge,  when 
spoken  of  morally,  is  always  understood  in  the  Scriptures.  We  may 
not  be  disposed  to  allow,  with  some,  that  he  understood  the  deep  philo- 
sophy  of  nature,  and  could  comprehend  and  explain  the  sublime  myste- 
ries of  religion.  The  circumstance  of  his  giving  names  to  the  animals 
is  certainly  no  sufficient  proof  of  his  having  attained  to  a  philosophical 
acquaintance  with  their  qualities  and  distinguishing  habits,  though  we 
should  allow  the  names  to  be  still  retained  in  the  Hebrew,  and  to  be  as 
expressive  of  their  peculiarities  as  some  expositors  have  stated.  No 
sufficient  time  appears  to  have  been  aflx)rded  him  for  the  study  of  their 
properties,  as  this  event  took  place  previous  to  the  formation  of  Eve ; 
and  as  for  the  notion  of  his  acquiring  knowledge  by  intuition,  it  is  con- 
tradicted by  the  revealed  fact,  that  angels  themselves  acquire  their 

4) 


SECOi\D.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  15 

knowledge  by  observation  and  study,^  though,  no  doubt,  with  greater 
rapidity  and  certainty  than  we.  The  whole  of  the  transaction  was 
supernatural ;  the  beasts  were  "  brought"  to  Adam,  and  it  is  probable 
that  he  named  them  under  a  Divine  impulse.  He  has  been  supposed 
to  be  the  inventor  of  language,  but  the  history  shows  that  he  was  never 
without  language.  He  was  from  the  first  able  to  converse  with  God  ; 
and  we  may,  therefore,  infer  that  language  was  in  him  a  supernatural 
and  miraculous  endowment.  That  his  understanding  was,  as  to  its  ca- 
pacity, deep  and  large  beyond  any  of  his  posterity,  must  follow  from 
the  perfection  in  which  he  was  created,  and  his  acquisitions  of  know- 
ledge would,  therefore,  be  rapid  and  easy.  It  was,  however,  in  moral 
and  religious  truth,  as  being  of  the  first  concern  to  him,  that  we  are  to 
suppose  the  excellency  of  his  knowledge  to  have  consisted.  "  His  rea- 
son would  be  clear,  his  judgment  unCorrupted,  and  his  conscience  upright 
and  sensible."  [Watts.)  The  best  knowledge  would,  in  him,  be  placed 
first,  and  that  of  every  other  kind  be  made  subservient  to  it,  according 
to  its  relation  to  that.  The  apostle  adds  to  knowledge,  "  righteousness 
and  true  holiness,"  terms  which  express  not  merely  freedom  from  sin, 
but  positive  and  active  virtues. 

"  A  rational  creature  thus  made,  must  not  only  be  innocent  and  free, 
but  must  be  formed  holy.  Eis  will  must  have  an  inward  bias  to  virtue  : 
he  must  have  an  inclination  to  please  that  God  who  made  him ;  a 
supreme  love  to  his  Creator,  a  zeal  to  serve  him,  and  a  tender  fear  of 
offending  him. 

"  For  either  the  nev/  created  man  loved  God  supremely  or  not.  If 
he  did  not  he  was  not  innocent,  since  the  law  of  nature  requires  a  su- 
preme love  to  God.  If  he  did  he  stood  ready  for  every  act  of  obedience : 
and  this  is  true  holiness  of  heart.  And,  indeed,  without  this,  how  could 
a  God  of  holiness  love  the  work  of  his  own  hands  ? 

"  There  must  be  also  in  this  creature  a  regular  subjection  of  the  infe- 
rior powers  to  the  superior  sense,  and  appetite  and  passion  must  be 
subject  to  reason.  The  mind  must  have  a  power  to  govern  these  lower 
faculties,  that  he  might  not  offend  against  the  law  of  his  creation. 

"  He  must  also  have  his  heart  inlaid  with  love  to  the  creatures,  espe- 
cially those  of  his  own  species,  if  he  should  be  placed  among  them  :  and 
with  a  principle  of  honesty  and  truth  in  deahng  with  them.  And  if 
many  of  those  creatures  were  made  at  once,  there  would  be  no  pride, 
malice,  or  envy,  no  falsehood,  no  brawls  or  contentions  among  them,  but 
all  harmony  and  love."  (Dr.  Watts.) 

Sober  as  these  views  are  of  man's  primitive  state,  it  is  not,  perhaps, 
possible  for  us  fully  to  conceive  of  so  exalted  a  condition  as  even  this. 
Below  this  standard  it  could  not  fall ;  and  that  it  implied  a  glory,  and 
dignity,  and  moral  greatness  of  a  very  exalted  kind,  is  made  sufficiently 
apparent  fi:om  the  degree  of  guilt  charged  upon  Adam  when  he  fell,  for 


16  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  aggravating  circumstances  of  his  offence  may  well  be  deduced  from 
the  tremendous  consequences  which  followed. 

The  creation  of  man  in  the  moral  image  of  God  being  so  clearly- 
stated  in  the  Scriptures,  it  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  in  what  manner 
their  testimony,  in  this  point,  could  be  evaded,  did  we  not  know  the 
readiness  with  which  some  minds  form  objections,  and  how  little  inge- 
nuity is  required  to  make  objections  plausible.  The  objection  to  this 
clearly  revealed  truth  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  and  it 
has  been  followed  in  substance,  and  with  only  some  variation  of  phrase, 
by  the  Socinians  of  the  present  day.  "  Adam  could  not  be  originally 
created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness ;  because  habits  of  holiness 
cannot  be  created  without  our  knowledge,  concurrence,  or  consent ;  for 
holiness  in  its  nature  implies  the  choice  and  consent  of  a  moral  agent, 
without  which  it  cannot  be  holiness."  If,  however,  it  has  been  esta- 
blished  that  God  made  man  upright ;  that  he  was  created  in  "  know- 
ledge," "  righteousness,"  and  "  true  holiness ;"  and  that  at  his  creation 
he  was  pronounced  -eery  good ;  all  this  falls  to  the  ground,  and  is  the 
vain  reasoning  of  man  against  the  explicit  testimony  of  God.  The  fal- 
lacy is,  however,  easily  detected.  It  lies  in  confounding  "  Tiahits  of 
holiness"  with  the  principle  of  holiness.  Now  though  habit  is  the  result 
of  acts,  and  acts  of  voluntary  choice ;  yet  if  the  choice  be  a  right  one, 
and  right  it  must  be  in  order  to  an  act  of  holin,ess,  and  if  this  right 
choice,  frequently  exerted,  produces  so  many  acts  as  shall  form  what  is 
called  a  habit,  then  either  the  principle  from  which  that  right  choice  arises 
must  be  good  or  bad,  or  nehher.  If  neither,  a  right  choice  has  no  cause 
at  all ;  if  bad,  a  right  choice  could  not  originate  from  it ;  if  good,  then 
there  may  be  a  holy  principle  in  man,  a  right  nature  before  choice,  and 
so  that  part  of  the  argument  falls  to  the  ground.  Now,  in  Adam,  that 
rectitude  of  principle  from  which  a  right  choice  and  right  acts  flowed, 
was  either  created  with  him  or  formed  by  his  own  volitions.  If  the  lat- 
ter be  affirmed,  then  he  must  have  willed  right  before  he  had  a  principle 
of  rectitude,  which  is  absurd ;  if  the  former,  then  his  creation  in  a  state 
of  moral  rectitude,  with  an  aptitude  and  disposition  to  good  is  established. 

Mr.  Wesley  thus  answers  the  objection  : — 

"  What  is  holiness  ?  Is  it  not  essentially  love  ?  The  love  of  God  and 
of  all  mankind  ?  Love  producing  '  bowels  of  mercies,'  humbleness  of 
mind,  meekness,  gentleness,  long  suffering?  And  cannot  God  shed 
abroad  this  love  in  any  soul,  without  his  concurrence  ?  Antecedent  to 
his  knowledge  or  consent?  And  supposing  this  to  be  done,  will  love 
change  its  nature  ?  Will  it  be  no  longer  holiness  ?  This  argument  can 
never  be  sustained  ;  unless  you  would  play  with  the  word  habits.  Love 
is  holiness  wherever  it  exists.  And  God  could  create  either  men  or 
angels,  endued  from  the  very  first  moment  of  their  existence,  with  what- 
soever degree  of  love  he  pleased. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  17 

"  You  *  think,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  demonstration,  that  we  cannot  be 
righteous  or  holy,  we  cannot  observe  what  is  right  without  our  own  free 
and  explicit  choice.'  I  suppose  you  mean  -practise  what  is  right.  But 
a  man  may  be  righteous  before  he  does  what  is  right,  holy  in  heart  be- 
fore he  is  holy  in  life.  The  confounding  these  two  all  along,  seems  the 
ground  of  your  strange  imagination,  that  Adam  '  must  choose  to  be 
righteous,  must  exercise  thought  and  reflection  before  he  could  be  right- 
eous.' Why  so  ?  *  Because  righteousness  is  the  right  use  and  applica- 
tion of  our  powers.'  Here  is  your  capital  mistake.  No,  it  is  not :  it 
is  the  right  state  of  our  powers.  It  is  the  right  disposition  of  our  souU 
the  right  temper  of  our  mind.  Take  this  with  you,  and  you  will  no  more 
dream,  that  *  God  could  not  create  man  in  righteousness  and  true  holi- 
ness.' "  [Original  Sin.) 

President  Edwards's  answer  is  : — 

*'  I  think  it  a  contradiction  to  the  nature  of  things  as  judged  of  by  the 
common  sense  of  mankind.  It  is  agreeable  to  the  sense  of  men,  in  all 
nations  and  ages,  not  only  that  the  fruit  or  effect  of  a  good  choice  is 
virtuous,  but  that  the  good  choice  itself,  from  whence  that  effect  pro- 
ceeds, is  so  ;  yea,  also  the  antecedent  food,  disposition,  temper,  or 
affection  of  mind,  from  whence  proceeds  that  good  choice  is  virtuous. 
This  is  the  general  notion — not  that  principles  derive  their  goodness 
from  actions,  but — that  actions  derive  their  goodness  from  the  prin- 
ciples whence  they  proceed  ;  so  that  the  act  of  choosing  what  is  good, 
is  no  farther  virtuous  than  it  proceeds  from  a  good  principle  or  virtuous 
disposition  of  mind.  Which  supposes  that  a  virtuous  disposition  of  mind 
may  be  before  a  virtuous  act  of  choice ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not 
necessary  there  should  first  be  thought,  reflection,  and  choice,  before 
there  can  be  any  virtuous  disposition.  If  the  choice  be  first,  before  the 
existence  of  a  good  disposition  of  heart,  what  is  the  character  of  that 
choice  ?  There  can,  according  to  our  natural  notions,  be  no  virtue  in  a 
choice  which  proceeds  from  no  virtuous  principle,  but  from  mere  self 
love,  ambition,  or  some  animal  appetites ;  therefore,  a  virtuous  temper 
of  mind  may  be  before  a  good  act  of  choice,  as  a  tree  may  be  before 
the  fruit,  and  the  fountain  before  the  stream  which  proceeds  from  it." 
(Original  Sin.) 

The  final  cause  of  man's  creation  was  the  display  of  the  glory  of 
God,  and  principally  of  his  moral  perfections.  Among  these,  benevo- 
lence shone  with  eminent  lustre.  The  creation  of  rational  and  holy 
creatures  was  the  only  means,  as  it  appears  to  us,  of  accomplishing 
that  most  paternal  and  benevolent  design,  to  impart  to  other  beings  a 
portion  of  the  Divine  feUcity.  The  happiness  of  God  is  the  result  of  his 
moral  perfection,  and  it  is  complete  and  perfect.  It  is  also  specific  ;  it 
is  the  felicity  of  knowledge,  of  conscious  rectitude,  of  sufficiency,  and 
independence.     Of  the  two  former,  creatures  were  capable  ;  but  only 

Vol.  II.  2 


18  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

rational  creatures.  Matter,  however  formed,  is  unconscious,  and  is,  and 
must  for  ever  remain,  incapable  of  happiness.  However  disposed  and 
adorned,  it  was  made  for  another,  and  not  at  all  with  reference  to  itself. 
If  it  be  curiously  wrought,  it  is  for  some  other's  wonder ;  if  it  has  use, 
it  is  for  another's  convenience  ;  if  it  has  beauty,  it  is  for  another's  eye ; 
if  harmonv,  it  is  for  another's  ear.  Irrational  animate  creatures  may 
derive  advantage  from  mere  matter  ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that  they  are 
conscious  of  it.  They  have  the  enjoyment  of  sense,  but  not  the  powers 
of  reflection,  comparison,  and  taste.  They  see  without  admiration,  they 
combine  nothing  into  relations.  So  to  know,  as  to  be  conscious  of  know- 
ing,  and  to  feel  the  pleasures  of  knowledge  ;  so  to  know,  as  to  impart 
knowledge  to  others ;  so  to  know,  as  to  lay  the  basis  of  future  and  enlarg- 
ing knowledge,  as  to  discover  the  efficient  and  the  final  causes  of  things  ; 
and  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  discovery  and  certainty  of  imagination  and 
taste, — this  is  pecuhar  to  rational  beings.  Above  all,  to  know  the  great 
Creator  and  Lord  of  all ;  to  see  the  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong,  of 
good  and  evil  in  his  law  ;  to  have,  therefore,  the  consciousness  of  integ- 
rity and  of  well  ordered  and  perfectly  balanced  passions ;  to  feel  the 
felicity  of  universal  and  unbounded  benevolence  ;  to  be  conscious  of  the 
favour  of  God  himself ;  to  have  perfect  confidence  in  his  care  and  con- 
stant benediction ;  to  adore  him ;  to  be  grateful ;  to  exert  hope  with- 
out limit  on  future  and  unceasing  blessings ;  all  these  sources  of  felicity 
were  added  to  the  pleasures  of  intellect  and  imagination  in  the  creation 
of  rational  beings.  In  whatever  part  of  the  universe  they  were  created 
and  placed,  we  have  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  this  was  the  primi- 
tive condition  of  all ;  and  we  know,  assuredly,  from  God's  own  revela- 
tion, that  it  was  the  condition  of  man.  In  his  creation  and  primeval 
condition,  the  "  kindness  and  love  of  God"  eminently  appeared.  He 
was  made  a  rational  and  immortal  spirit,  with  no  Umits  to  the  constant 
enlargement  of  his  powers  ;  for,  from  all  the  evidence  that  our  own 
consciousness,  even  in  our  fallen  state,  afibrds  us,  it  appears  possible  to 
the  human  soul  to  be  eternally  approaching  the  infinite  in  intellectual 
strength  and  attainment.  He  was  made  holy  and  happy ;  he  was  ad- 
mitted to  intercourse  with  God.  He  was  not  left  alone,  but  had  the 
pleasure  of  society.  He  was  placed  in  a  world  of  grandeur,  harmony, 
beauty,  and  utility  ;  it  was  canopied  with  other  distant  worlds  to  exhibit 
to  his  very  sense  a  manifestation  of  the  extent  of  space  and  the  vast- 
ness  of  the  varied  universe ;  and  to  call  both  his  reason,  his  fancy,  and 
his  devotion,  into  their  most  vigorous  and  salutary  exercises.  He  was 
placed  in  a  paradise,  where,  probably,  all  that  was  subUme  and  gentle 
in  the  scenery  of  the  whole  earth  was  exhibited  in  paUem ;  and  all 
that  could  delight  the  innocent  sense,  and  excite  the  curious  inquiries 
of  the  mind,  was  spread  before  him.  He  had  labour  to  employ  his  at- 
tention,  without  wearying  him  ;  and  time  for  his  highest  pursuits  of 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  19 

knowing  God,  his  will,  and  his  works.  All  was  a  manifestation  of  uni^ 
versal  love,  of  which  he  was  the  chief  visible  object ,  and  the  feUcity 
and  glory  of  his  condition  must,  by  his  and  their  obedience  in  succes- 
sion, have  descended  to  his  posterity  for  ever.  Such  was  our  world, 
and  its  rational  inhabitants,  the  first  pair  ;  and  thus  did  its  creation 
manifest  not  only  the  power  and  wisdom,  but  the  benevolence  of  Deity. 
He  made  them  like  himself,  and  he  made  them  capable  of  a  happiness 
like  his  own. 

The  case  of  man  is  now  so  obviously  different,  that  the  change  can- 
not be  denied.  The  Scriptural  method  of  accounting  for  this  is  the 
disobedience  of  our  first  parents ;  and  the  visitation  of  their  sin  upon 
their  posterity,  in  the  altered  condition  of  the  material  world,  in  the 
corrupt  moral  state  in  which  men  are  born,  and  in  that  afflictive  condi- 
tion  which  is  universally  imposed  upon  them.  The  testimony  of  the 
sacred  writings  to  what  is  called,  in  theological  language,  the  Fall  of 
Man,  (9)  is,  therefore,  to  be  next  considered. 

The  Mosaic  account  of  this  event  is^  that  a  garden  having  been 
planted  by  the  Creator,  for  the  use  of  man,  he  was  placed  in  it,  "  to 
dress  it,  and  to  keep  it ;"  that  in  this  garden  two  trees  were  specially 
distinguished,  one  as  "  the  tree  of  life,"  the  other  as  "  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil ;"  that,  from  eating  of  the  latter  Adam  was 
restrained  by  positive  interdict,  and  by  the  penalty,  "  in  the  day  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die :"  that  the  serpent,  who  was  more 
subtle  than  any  beast  of  the  field,  tempted  the  woman  to  eat,  by  denying 
that  death  would  be  the  consequence,  and  by  assuring  her,  that  her 
eyes  and  her  husband's  eyes  "  would  be  opened,"  and  that  they  would 
"  be  as  gods,  knowing  good  and  evil :"  that  the  woman  took  of  the  fruit, 
gave  of  it  to  her  husband,  who  also  ate ;  that  for  this  act  of  disobedience 
they  were  expelled  from  the  garden,  made  subject  to  death,  and  laid 
under  other  maledictions. 

That  this  history  should  be  the  subject  of  much  criticism,  not  only  by 
infidels,  whose  objections  to  it  have  been  noticed  in  the  first  part  of  this 
work  ;  but  by  those  who  hold  false  and  perverted  views  of  the  Christian 
system,  was  to  be  expected.  Taken  in  its  natural  and  obvious  sense, 
along  with  the  comments  of  the  subsequent  scriptures,  it  teaches  the 
doctrines  of  the  existence  of  an  evil,  tempting,  invisible  spirit,  going 
about  seeking  whom  he  may  deceive  and  devour ;  of  the  introduction 
of  a  state  of  moral  corruptness  into  human  nature,  which  has  been  trans- 
mitted to  all  men  ;  and  of  a  vicarious  atcmement  for  sin  :  and  wherever 
the  fundamental  truths  of  the  Christian  system  are  denied,  attempts  will 
be  made  so  to  interpret  this  part  of  the  Mosaic  history  as  to  obscure 

(9)  This  phrase  does  not  occur  in  the  canonical  Scriptures ;  but  is,  probably, 
taken  from  Wisdom  x,  1,  '*  She  preserved  the  first  formed  father  of  the  world 
that  was  created,  and  brought  him  out  of  his  fall^ 

2 


20  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  testimony  which  it  gives  to  them,  either  exphcitly,  or  by  just  induc- 
tion. Interpreters  of  this  account  of  the  lapse  of  the  first  pair,  and  the 
oriffin  of  evil,  as  to  the  human  race,  have  adopted  various  and  often 
strange  theories ;  but  those  whose  opinions  it  seems  necessary  to  notice 
may  be  divided  into  those  who  deny  the  literal  sense  of  the  relation 
entirely ;  those  who  take  the  account  to  be  in  part  literal  and  in  part 
alleo-orical ;  and  those  who,  while  they  contend  earnestly  for  the  literal 
interpretation  of  every  part  of  the  history,  consider  some  of  the  terms 
used,  and  some  of  the  persons  introduced,  as  conveying  a  meaning  more 
extensive  than  the  letter,  and  as  constituting  several  symbols  of  spiritual 
things  and  of  spiritual  beings. 

Those  who  have  denied  the  literal  sense  entirely,  and  regard  the 
whole  relation  as  an  instructive  myihos,  or  fable,  have,  as  might  be 
expected,  when  all  restraint  of  authority  was  thus  thrown  off  from  the 
imagination,  adopted  very  different  interpretations.  Thus  we  have  been 
taught,  that  this  account  was  intended  to  teach  the  evil  of  yielding  to  the 
violence  of  appetite  and  to  its  control  over  reason  ;  or  the  introduction 
of  vice  in  conjunction  with  knowledge  and  the  artificial  refinements  of 
society ;  or  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  great  mass  of  mankind  from 
acquiring  too  great  a  degree  of  knowledge,  as  being  hurtful  to  society ; 
or  as  another  version  of  the  story  of  the  golden  age,  and  its  being  sue 
ceeded  by  times  more  vicious  and  miserable ;  or  as  designed,  enigmati- 
cally, to  account  for  the  origin  of  evil,  or  of  mankind.  This  catalogue 
of  opinions  might  be  much  enlarged  :  some  of  them  have  been  held  by 
mere  visionaries  ;  others  by  men  of  learning,  especially  by  several  of 
the  semi-infidel  theologians  and  Biblical  critics  of  Germany ;  and  our 
own  country  has  not  been  exempt  from  this  class  o{  free  expositors. 
How  to  fix  upon  the  moral  of  "  the  fable"  is,  however,  the  difficulty ; 
and  this  variety  of  opinion  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  general  notion 
assumed  by  the  whole  class,  since  scarcely  can  two  of  them  be  found 
who  adopt  the  same  interpretation,  after  they  have  discarded  the  literal 
acceptation. 

But  that  the  account  of  Moses  is  to  be  taken  as  a  matter  of  real 
history,  and  according  to  its  literal  import,  is  estabUshed  by  two  consi- 
derations, against  which,  as  being  facts,  nothing  can  successfully  be 
urged.  The  first  is,  that  the  account  of  the  fall  of  the  first  pair  is  a  part 
of  a  continuous  history.  The  creation  of  the  world,  of  man,  of  woman  ; 
the  planting  of  the  garden  of  Eden,  and  the  placing  of  man  there  ;  the 
duties  and  prohibitions  laid  upon  him ;  his  disobedience  ;  his  expulsion 
from  the  garden ;  the  subsequent  birth  of  his  children,  their  lives  and 
actions,  and  those  of  their  posterity,  down  to  the  flood ;  and,  from  that 
event,  to  the  life  of  Abraham,  are  given  in  the  same  plain  and  unadorned 
narrative,  brief,  but  yet  simple,  and  with  no  intimation  at  all,  either  from 

the  elevation  of  the  style  or  otherwise,  that  a  fable  or  allegory  is  in  any 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  21 

part  introduced.  If  this,  then,  be  the  case,  and  the  evidence  of  it  Ues 
upon  the  very  face  of  the  history,  it  is  clear,  that  if  the  account  of  the 
fall  be  excerpted  from  the  whole  narrative  as  allegorical,  any  subse- 
quent part,  from  Abel  to  Noah,  from  Noah  to  Abraham,  from  Abraham 
to  Moses,  may  be  excerpted  for  the  same  reason,  which  is  neither  more 
nor  less  than  this,  that  it  does  not  eigree  with  the  theological  opinions  of 
the  interpreter ;  and  thus  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  rejected 
as  a  history,  and  converted  into  fable.  One  of  these  consequences 
must,  therefore,  follow,  either  that  the  account  of  the  fall  must  be  taken 
as  history,  or  the  historical  character  of  the  whole  five  books  of  Moses 
must  be  unsettled ;  and  if  none  but  infidels  will  go  to  the  latter  conse- 
quence, then  no  one  who  admits  the  Pentateuch  to  be  a  true  history 
generally,  can  consistently  refuse  to  admit  the  story  of  the  fall  of  the 
first  pair  to  be  a  narrative  of  real  events,  because  it  is  written  in  the 
same  style,  and  presents  the  same  character  of  a  continuous  record  of 
events.  So  conclusive  has  this  argument  been  felt,  that  the  anti-literal 
interpreters  have  endeavoured  to  evade  it,  by  asserting  that  the  part  of 
the  history  of  Moses  in  question  bears  marks  of  being  a  separate  frag- 
ment, more  ancient  than  the  Pentateuch  itself,  and  transcribed  into  it 
by  Moses,  the  author  and  compiler  of  the  whole.  This  point  is  exa- 
mined and  satisfactorily  refuted  in  the  learned  and  excellent  work 
referred  to  below  ;  (1)  but  it  is  easy  to  show,  that  it  would  amount  to 
nothing,  if  granted,  in  the  mind  of  any  who  is  satisfied  on  the  previous 
question  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  For  let  it  be  admit- 
ted that  Moses,  in  writing  the  Pentateuchal  history,  availed  himself 
of  the  traditions  of  the  patriarchal  ages,  a  supposition  not  in  the  least 
inconsistent  with  his  inspiration  or  with  the  absolute  truth  of  his  history, 
since  the  traditions  so  introduced  have  been  authenticated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  or  let  it  be  supposed,  which  is  wholly  gratuitous,  that  he  made 
use  of  previously  existing  documents ;  and  that  some  differences  of 
style  in  his  books  may  be  traced,  which  serve  to  point  out  his  quotations, 
which  also  is  an  assumption,  or  rather  a  position,  which  some  of  the 
best  Hebraists  have  denied,  yet  two  things  are  to  be  noted :  first,  that 
the  inspired  character  of  the  books  of  Moses  is  authenticated  by  om* 
Lord  and  his  apostles,  so  that  they  must  necessarily  be  wholly  true,  and 
free  from  real  contradictions ;  and,  secondly,  that  to  make  it  any  thing 
to  their  purpose  who  contend  that  the  account  of  the  fall  is  an  older 
document,  introduced  by  Moses,  it  ought  to  be  shown  that  it  is  not 
written  as  truly  in  the  narrative  style,  even  if  it  could  be  proved  to  be, 
in  some  respects  a  different  style,  as  that  which  precedes  and  follows  it. 
Now  the  very  literal  character  of  our  translation  will  enable  even  the 

(1)  Holden's  Dissertation  on  the  Fall  of  Man,  chap.  ii.  In  this  volume  the 
literal  sense  of  tlie  Mosaic  account  of  the  fall  is  largely  investigated  and  ably 
established. 

2 


22  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

unlearned  reader  to  discover  this.  Whether  it  be  an  embodied  tradition 
or  the  insertion  of  a  more  ancient  document,  (though  there  is  no  foun. 
dation  at  all  for  the  latter  supposition,)  it  is  obviously  a  narrative,  and 
a  narrative  as  simple  as  any  which  precedes  or  follows  it. 

The  other  indisputable  fact  to  which  I  just  now  adverted,  as  establish- 
ing the  literal  sense  of  the  history,  is  that,  as  such,  it  is  referred  to  and 
reasoned  upon  in  various  parts  of  Scripture. 

Job  XX,  4,  5,  "  Kncwest  thou  not  this  of  old,  since  man  was  placed 
upon  earth,  that  the  triumphing  of  the  wicked  is  short,  and  the  joy  of 
the  hypocrite  but  for  a  moment?"  The  first  part  of  the  quotation 
*'  might  as  well  have  been  rendered,  '  since  Adam  was  placed  on  the 
earth.'  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  but  that  this  passage  refers  to  the 
fall  and  the  first  sin  of  man.  The  date  agrees,  for  the  knowledge  here 
taught  is  said  to  arise  from  facts  as  old  as  the  first  placing  of  man  upon 
earth,  and  the  sudden  punishment  of  the  iniquity  corresponds  to  the 
Mosaic  account, — '  the  triumphing  of  the  wicked  is  short,  his  joy  but  for 
a  moment.'  "  {Sherlock  on  Prophecy.) 

Job  xxxi,  33^  "  If  I  covered  my  transgression  as  Adam,  by  hiding  my 
^iquity  in  my  bosom."     Magee  renders  the  verse, — 

"  Did  I  cover,  like  Adam,  my  transgression, 
By  hiding  in  a  lurking  place  mine  iniquity  ?" 

and  adds,  "  i  agree  with  Peters,  that  this  contains  a  reference  to  the  his^ 
tory  of  the  first  man,  and  his  endeavours  to  hide  himself  after  his  trans- 
gression." {Discourses  on  the  Atonement.)  Our  margin  reads,  "after 
the  manner  of  men  ;"  and  also  the  old  versions  ;  but  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase agrees  with  our  translation,  which  is  also  satisfactorily  defended 
by  numerous  critics. 

Job  XV,  14,  «'  What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean?  and  he  which 
is  bom  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous  ?"  Why  not  clean  ? 
Did  God  make  woman  or  man  unclean  at  the  beginning  ?  If  he  did,  the 
expostulation  would  have  been  more  apposite,  and  much  stronger,  had 
the  true  cause  been  assigned,  and  Job  had  said,  "  How  canst  thou  ex- 
pect cleanness  in  man,  whom  thou  createdst  unclean  ?"  But,  as  the  case 
now  stands,  the  expostulation  has  a  plain  reference  to  the  introduction 
of  vanity  and  corruption  by  the  sin  of  the  woman,  and  is  an  evidence 
that  this  ancient  writer  was  sensible  of  the  evil  consequences  of  the  fall 
upon  the  whole  race  of  man.  "  Eden"  and  "  the  garden  of  the  Lord'* 
are  also  frequently  referred  to  in  the  prophets.  We  have  the  "  tree  of 
life"  mentioned  several  times  in  the  Proverbs  and  in  the  Revelation. 
"God,"  says  Solomon,  "made  man  upright."  The  enemies  of  Christ 
and  his  Church  are  spoken  of,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
under  the  names  of  « the  serpent,"  and  "  the  dragon ;"  and  the  habit  of 
the  serpent  to  lick  the  dust  is  also  referred  to  by  Isaiah. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  23 

y 
If  the  history  of  the  fall,  as  jecorded  by  Moses,  were  an  allegory,  or 
any  thing  but  a  literal  history,  several  of  the  above  allusions  would  have 
no  meeining  ;  but  the  matter  is  put  beyond  all  possible  doubt  in  the  New 
Testament,  unless  the  same  culpable  liberties  be  taken  with  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  of  our  Lord  and  of  St.  Paul  as  with  those  of  the  Jew- 
ish lawgiver.  Our  Lord  says.  Matt,  xix,  4,  5,  "  Have  ye  not  read,  that 
he  which  made  them  at  the  beginning,  made  them  male  and  female  ;  and 
said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  to  his  wife  ;  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh  ?"  This  is  an 
sirgument  on  the  subject  of  divorces,  and  its  foundation  rests  upon  two 
of  the  facts  recorded  by  Moses.  1.  That  God  made  at  first  but  two  hu- 
man beings,  from  whom  all  the  rest  have  sprung.  2.  That  the  intimacy 
and  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  relation  rests  upon  the  formation  of 
the  woman  from  the  man ;  for  our  Lord  quotes  the  words  in  Genesis, 
where  the  obligation  of  man  to  cleave  to  his  wife  is  immediately  con- 
nected with  that  circumstance.  "  And  Adam  said.  This  is  now  bone 
of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  :  she  shall  be  called  woman,  because 
she  was  taken  out  of  man.  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father 
and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife ;  and  they  shall  be  one 
flesh."  This  is  sufficiently  in  proof  that  both  our  Lord  and  the  Phari- 
sees  considered  thia  early  part  of  the  history  of  Moses  as  a  narrative ; 
for  otherwise,  it  would  neither  have  been  a  reason,  on  his  part,  for  the 
doctrine  which  he  was  inculcating,  nor  have  had  any  force  of  convic 
tion  as  to  them.  "  In  Adam,"  says  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  all  die ;"  «  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world."  "  But  I  fear  lest  by  any  means, 
as  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  through  his  subtlety,  so  your  minds  should 
be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ."  In  the  last  passage, 
the  instrument  of  the  temptation  is  said  to  be  a  serpent,  [ocpig,)  which  is 
a  sufficient  answer  to  those  who  would  make  it  any  other  animal ;  and 
Eve  is  represented  as  being  first  seduced,  according  to  the  account  in 
Genesis.  This  St.  Paul  repeats,  in  1  Tim.  ii,  13,  14,  "Adam  was  first 
formed,  then  Eve.  And  Adam  w£ls  not  deceived,  (first,  or  immediately,) 
but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  in  the  transgression."  And  offers 
this  as  the  reason  of  his  injunction,  "  Let  the  woman  learn  in  silence 
with  all  subjection."  When,  therefore,  it  is  considered,  that  these  pas* 
sages  are  introduced  not  for  rhetorical  illustration,  or  in  the  way  of  clas- 
sical quotation,  but  are  made  the  basis  of  grave  and  important  reason-, 
ings,  which  embody  some  of  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
tian revelation ;  and  of  important  social  duties  and  points  of  Christian 
order  and  decorum  ;  it  would  be  to  charge  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament with  the  grossest  absurdity,  with  even  culpable  and  unworthy 
trifling,  to  suppose  them  to  argue  from  the  history  of  the  fall,  as  a  nar- 
rative, when  they  knew  it  to  be  an  allegory ;  and  if  we  are,  therefore, 
compelled  to  allow  that  it  was  understood  as  a  real  history  by  our  Lord 

2 


24  THEOLO€IICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  his  inspired  apostles,  those  speculations  of  modern  critics,  which 
convert  it  into  a  parable,  stand  branded  with  their  true  character  of  infi- 
del and  semi-infidel  temerity. 

The  objections  which  are  made  to  the  historical  character  of  this  ac 
count  are  either  those  of  open  unbelievers  and  scoffers  ;  or  such  as  are 
founded  precisely  upon  the  same  allegations  of  supposed  absurdity  and 
unsuitableness  to  which  such  persons  resort,  and  which  suppose  that 
man  is  a  competent  judge  of  the  proceedings  of  his  Maker,  and  that  the 
Jatter  ought  to  regulate  his  conduct  and  requirements  by  what  the  former 
may  think  fit  or  unfit.  If  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  first  chapter 
in  Genesis  could  be  proved  inconsistent  with  other  parts  of  Holy  Writ, 
then,  indeed,  we  should  be  compelled  to  adopt  the  mode  of  explanation 
by  allegory ;  but  if  no  reason  more  weighty  can  be  offered  for  so  vio- 
lent a  proceeding,  than  that  men  either  object  to  the  doctrines  which 
the  literal  account  includes ;  or  that  the  recorded  account  of  the  actual 
dealings  of  God  with  the  first  man,  does  not  comport  with  their  notions 
of  what  was  fit  in  such  circumstances,  we  should  hold  truth  with  little 
tenacity,  were  we  to  surrender  it  to  the  enemy  upon  such  a  summons. 
The  fallacy  of  most  of  these  objections  is,  however,  easily  pointed  out. 
We  are  asked,  first,  whether  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  fruit 
of  the  tree  of  life  could  confer  immortahty?  But  what  is  there  irra- 
tional in  supposing  that,  though  Adam  was  made  exempt  from  death,  yet 
that  the  fruit  of  a  tree  should  be  the  appointed  instrument  of  preserving 
his  health,  repairing  the  wastes  of  his  animal  nature,  and  of  maintaining 
him  in  perpetual  youth  ?  Almighty  God  could  have  accomplished  this 
end  without  means,  or  by  other  means ;  but  since  he  so  often  employs 
instruments,  it  is  not  more  strange  that  he  should  ordain  to  preserve 
Adam  permanently  from  death  by  food  of  a  special  quality,  than  that 
now  he  should  preserve  men  in  health  and  life,  for  three-score  years  and 
ten,  by  specific  foods ;  and  that,  to  counteract  disorders,  he  should  have 
given  specific  medicinal  qualities  to  herbs  and  minerals  :  or  if,  with  some, 
we  regard  the  eating  of  the  tree  of  life  as  a  sacramental  act,  an  expres- 
sion  of  faith  in  the  promise  of  continued  preservation,  and  a  means  through 
which  the  conserving  influence  of  God  was  bestowed,  a  notion,  however, 
not  so  well  founded  as  the  other,  it  is  yet  not  inconsistent  with  the  literal 
interpretation,  and  involves  no  really  unreasonable  consequence,  and 
nothing  directly  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  faith.  It  has  been,  also, 
foolishly  enough  asked  whether  the  fruit  of  the  prohibited  tree,  or  of  any 
tree,  can  be  supposed  to  have  communicated  "knowledge  of  good  and 
evil,"  or  have  had  any  effect  at  all  upon  the  intellectual  powers  ?  But 
this  is  not  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  history,  however  literally  taken,  and 
the  objection  is  groundless.  That  tree  might  surely,  without  the  least 
approach  to  allegory,  be  called  "  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil,"  whether  we  understand  by  this,  that  by  eating  it  man  came  to 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  25 

know,  by  sad  experience,  the  value  of  the  "  good"  he  had  forfeited,  and 
the  bitterness  of  "  evil,"  which  he  had  before  known  only  in  name  ;  or, 
as  others  have  understood  it,  that  it  was  appointed  to  be  the  test  of 
Adam's  fidelity  to  his  Creator,  and,  consequently,  was  a  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  a  tree  for  the  purpose  of  knowing  (or  mak- 
ing known)  whether  he  would  cleave  to  the  former,  or  make  choice  of 
the  latter.  The  first  of  these  interpretations  is,  I  think,  to  be  preferred, 
oecause  it  better  harmonizes  with  the  whole  history  ;  but  either  of  them 
is  consistent  with  a  hteral  interpretation,  and  cannot  be  proved  to  involve 
any  real  absurdity. 

To  the  account  of  the  serpent,  it  has  been  objected  that,  taken  literally, 
it  makes  the  invisible  tempter  assume  the  body  of  an  animal  to  carry  on 
his  designs :  but  we  must  be  better  acquainted  with  the  nature  and  laws 
of  disembodied  spirits  before  we  can  prove  this  to  be  impossible,  or  even 
unlikely ;  and  as  for  an  animal  being  chosen  as  the  means  of  approach 
to  Eve,  without  exciting  suspicion,  it  is  manifest  that,  allowing  a  supe- 
rior spirit  to  be  the  real  tempter,  it  was  good  policy  in  him  to  address 
Eve  through  an  animal  which  she  must  have  noticed  as  one  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  garden,  rather  than  in  a  human  form,  when  she  knew 
that  herself  and  her  husband  were  the  only  human  beings  as  yet  in  ex- 
istence.  The  presence  of  such  a  stranger  would  have  been  much  more 
likely  to  put  her  on  her  guard.  But  then,  we  are  told  that  the  animal 
was  a  contemptible  reptile.  Certainly  not  before  he  was  degraded  in 
form ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  one  of  the  «  beasts  of  the  earth,"  and  not  a 
"creeping  thing;"  and  also  more  "subtle,"  more  discerning  and  saga- 
cious  "  than  any  beast  of  the  field  which  the  Lord  God  had  made" — 
consequently  the  head  of  all  the  inferior  animals  in  intellect,  and  not  un- 
likely to  have  been  of  a  corresponding  noble  and  beautiful  form ;  for 
this,  indeed,  his  bodily  degradation  imports.  (2)  If  there  was  policy, 
then,  ill  Satan's  choosing  an  animal  as  the  instrument  by  which  he  might 
make  his  approaches,  there  was  as  much  good  taste  in  his  selection  as 
the  allegorists,  who  seem  anxious  on  this  point,  can  wish  for  him.  The 
speaking  of  the  serpent  is  another  stumbling-block  ;  but  £is  the  argument 
is  not  here  with  an  infidel,  but  with  those  who  profess  to  receive  the 
Mosaic  record  as  Divine,  the  speaking  of  the  serpent  is  no  more  a  rea- 
son  for  interpreting  the  relation  allegorically,  tlian  the  speaking  of  the 
ass  of  Balaam  can  be  for  allegorizing  the  whole  of  that  transaction. 
That  a  good  or  an  evil  spirit  has  no  power  to  produce  articulate  sounds 

(2)  We  have  no  reason  at  all  to  suppose,  as  it  is  strangely  done  almost  uni- 
formly by  commentators,  that  this  aniznal  had  the  serpentine  form  in  any  mode 
or  degree  at  all  before  his  transformation.  That  he  was  then  degraded  to  a  rep- 
tile, to  go  "  upon  his  belly,"  imports,  on  the  contrary,  an  entire  alteration  and 
loss  of  the  original  form — a  form  of  which  it  is  clear  no  idea  can  now  be  con- 
ceived. 

2 


26  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  .     [PART 

from  the  organs  of  an  animal,  no  philosophy  can  prove,  and  it  is  a  fact 
which  is,  therefore,  capable  of  being  rationally  substantiated  by  testimony. 
There  is  a  clear  reason,  too,  for  this  use  of  the  power  of  Satan  in  the 
story  itself.  By  his  giving  speech  to  the  serpent,  and  representing  thaty 
as  appears  from  the  account,  as  a  consequence  of  the  serpent  having 
himself  eaten  of  the  fruit,  (3)  he  took  the  most  effectual  means  of  im- 
pressing  Eve  with  the  dangerous  and  fatal  notion,  that  the  prohibition 
of  the  tree  of  knowledge  was  a  restraint  upon  her  happiness  and  intel- 
lectual improvement,  and  thus  to  suggest  hard  thoughts  of  her  Maker. 
The  objection  that  Eve  manifested  no  surprise  when  she  heard  an  ani- 
mal speak,  whom  she  must  have  known  not  to  have  had  that  faculty 
before,  has  also  no  weight,  since  that  circumstance  might  have  occur- 
red without  being  mentioned  in  so  brief  a  history.  It  is  still  more  likely 
that  Adam  should  have  expressed  some  marks  of  surprise  and  anxiety 
too,  when  his  wife  presented  the  fruit  to  him,  though  nothing  of  the  kind 
is  mentioned.  But  allowing  that  no  surprise  was  indicated  by  the  wo- 
man, the  answer  of  the  author  just  quoted  is  satisfactory. 

"  In  such  a  state,  reason  must  enjoy  a  calm  dominion ;  and  conse- 
quently there  was  no  room  for  those  sudden  starts  of  imagination,  or 
those  sudden  tumults,  agitations,  failures,  and  stagnations  of  the  blood 
and  spirits  now  incident  to  human  nature ;  and  therefore  Eve  was  inca- 
pable of  fear  or  surprise  from  such  accidents  as  would  disquiet  the  best 
of  her  posterity.  This  objection  then  is  so  far  from  prejudicing  the 
tmth  of  the  Mosaic  history,  that  to  me  I  own  it  a  strong  presumption  in 
its  favour. 

"  But  after  all,  if  this  objection  has  any  weight  with  any  one,  let  him 
consider  what  there  is  in  this  philosophic  serenity  of  our  first  parent, 
supposing  the  whole  of  her  conduct  on  this  occasion  fully  related  to  us, 
so  far  exceeding  the  serenity  of  Fabricius,  upon  the  sudden  appearance 
and  cry  of  the  elephant  contrived  by  Pyrrhus  to  discompose  him  ;  or  the 
steadiness  of  Brutus  upon  the  appearance  of  his  evil  genius ;  and  yet  I 
believe  Plutarch  no  way  suffers  in  his  credit  as  a  historian  by  the  rela- 

(3)  "  '  And  when  the  woman  saw  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food,'  «fec.  Now 
Eve  could  plainly  know,  by  her  senses,  that  the  fruit  was  desirable  to  the  eye, 
but  it  was  impossible  she  could  know  that  it  was  good  for  food,  but  from  the  ex- 
ample and  experiment  of  the  serpent.  It  was  also  impossible  she  could  know 
that  it  was  desirable  to  make  use  of  it,  but  by  the  example  of  the  serpent,  whom 
she  saw  from  a  brute  become  a  rational  and  vocal  creature,  as  she  thought  by 
eating  that  fruit.  The  text  says  she  saw  it  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was 
desirable  to  make  wise,  and  seeing  does  not  imply  conjecture  or  belief,  but  cer- 
tain knowledge  ;  knowledge  founded  upon  evidence  and  proof;  such  proof  as  she 
had  then  before  her  eyes.  And  when  once  we  are  sure  that  she  had  this  proof, 
as  It  is  evident  she  had,  the  whole  conference  between  her  and  the  serpent  is  as 
rational  and  intelligible  as  any  thing  in  the  whole  Scriptures."  (Delany's  Dig. 
sertations.) 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGIGAL    INSTITUTES.  27 

tion  of  those  events  ;  af  least  had  he  related  those  surprising  accidents 
without  saying  one  word  of  what  effects  they  had  upon  the  passions  of 
the  persons  concerned,  his  relations  had  certainly  been  Hable  to  no 
imputation  of  incredibility  or  improbability  upon  that  account."  (Revela- 
tion Examined.) 

An  objection  is  taken  to  the  jtcstice  of  the  sentence  pronounced  on  the 
serpent,  if  the  transaction  be  accounted  real,  and  if  that  animal  were  but 
the  unconscious  instrument  of  the  great  seducer.  To  this  the  reply  is 
obvious,  that  it  could  be  no  matter  of  just  complaint  to  the  serpent  that 
its  form  should  be  changed,  and  its  species  lowered  in  the  scale  of  being. 
It  had  no  original  right  to  its  fonner  superior  rank,  but  held  it  at  the  plea- 
sure of  the  Creator.  If  special  pain  and  sufferings  had  been  inflicted  upon 
the  serpent,  there  would  have  been  a  semblance  of  plausibiUty  in  the  ob- 
jection ;  but  the  serpent  suffered,  as  to  Uability  to  pain  and  death,  no  more 
than  other  animals,  and  was  not  therefore  any  more  than  another  irra- 
tional creature,  accounted  a  responsible  offender.  Its  degiadation  was 
evidently  intended  as  a  memento  to  man,  and  the  real  punishment,  as 
we  shall  show,  fell  upon  the  real  transgressor  who  used  the  serpent  as 
his  instrument ;  while  the  enmity  of  the  whole  race  of  serpents  to  the 
human  race,  their  cunning,  and  their  poisonous  qualities,  appear  to  have 
been  wisely  and  graciously  intended  as  standing  warnings  to  us  to  be- 
ware of  that  great  spiritual  enemy,  who  ever  lies  in  wait  to  wound  and 
to  destroy. 

These  are  the  principal  objections  made  to  the  literal  interpretation  of 
this  portion  of  the  Mosaic  record,  and  we  have  seen  that  they  are  either 
of  no  weight  in  themselves,  or  that  they  cannot  be  entertained  without 
leading  to  a  total  disregard  of  other  parts  of  the  inspired  Scriptures.  Tra- 
dition, too,  comes  in  to  the  support  of  the  Uteral  sense,  and  on  such  a 
question  has  great  weight.  The  Apocryphal  writings  afford  a  satis- 
factory testimony  of  the  sentiments  of  the  Jews.  2  Esdras  iii,  4-7,  "  O 
Lord,  thou  barest  rule,  thou  spakest  at  the  beginning,  when  thou  didst 
plant  the  earth,  and  that  thyself  alone,  and  commandest  the  people  ; 
and  gavest  a  body  to  Adam  without  soul,  which  was  the  workmanship 
of  thy  hands,  and  didst  breathe  into  him  the  breath  of  life,  and  he  was 
made  living  before  thee  ;  and  thou  leddest  him  into  paradise,  which  thy 
right  hand  had  planted,  and  unto  him  thou  gavest  commandment  to  love 
thy  way,  which  he  transgressed,  and  immediately  thou  appointedst 
death  in  him  and  in  his  generations,  of  whom  came  nations,  tribes, 
people,  and  kindreds  out  of  number."  2  Esdras  vii,  48,  "  O  thou 
Adam,  what  hast  thou  done  ?  for  though  it  was  thou  that  sinned,  thou 
art  not  fallen  alone,  but  we  are  all  that  came  of  thee."  Wisdom  ii,  24, 
"  Nevertheless,  through  envy  of  the  devil  came  death  into  the  world." 
Wisdom  X,  1,  "  She  (wisdom)  preserved  the  first-formed  father  of  the 
world,  that  was  created  alone,  and  brought  him  out  of  his  fall."    Eccle- 

2 


28  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

siasticus  xvii  1,  &c,  "The  Lord  created  man  of  the  earth,  and  turned 
him  into  it  again.  He  gave  them  a  few  days  and  a  short  time,  and  also 
power  over  all  things  therein — he  filled  them  with  the  knowledge  of 
understanding,  and  showed  them  good  and  evil."  By  these  ancient 
Jewish  writers  it  is,  therefore,  certain,  that  the  account  of  the  fall  was 
understood  as  the  narrative  of  a  real  transaction ;  and,  except  on  this 
assumption,  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  those  traditions  which  are 
embodied  in  the  mythology  of  almost  all  pagan  nations.  Of  these  fables 
the  basis  must  have  been  some  fact,  real  or  supposed  ;  for  as  well  might 
we  expect  the  fables  of  jEsop  to  have  impressed  themselves  on  the 
religious  ceremonies  and  belief  of  nations,  as  the  Mosaic  fable  of  man's 
fall ;  for  a  mere  fable  it  must  be  accounted,  if  it  is  to  lose  its  literal 
interpretation. 

Popular  convictions  every  where  prevailed  of  the  existence  of  some 
beings  of  the  higher  order,  who  had  revolted  from  their  subjection  to 
the  heavenly  power  which  presided  over  the  universe  ;  and  upon  them 
were  raised  many  fabulous  stories.  It  is  probable,  that  these  convic- 
tions were  originally  founded  on  the  circumstances  referred  to  in  Scrip- 
ture with  respect  to  Satan  and  his  angels,  as  powerful  malevolent  beings, 
who,  having  first  seduced  Adam  from  his  obedience,  incessantly  laboured 
to  deceive,  corrupt,  and  destroy  his  descendants.  The  notion  of  the 
magi  of  Plutarch,  and  of  the  Manicheans,  concerning  two  independent 
principles,  acting  in  opposition  to  each  other,  was  also  foimded  on  the 
real  circumstances  of  the  apostasy  of  angels,  and  of  their  interference 
and  influence  in  the  affairs  of  men.  The  fictions  of  Indian  mythology 
with  regard  to  contending  powers,  and  their  subordinate  ministers, 
benevolent  and  malignant,  were  erected  on  the  same  basis  of  truth ; 
and  the  Grecian  and  Roman  accounts  of  the  battles  of  the  giants 
against  Jupiter,  were,  perhaps,  built  on  the  corruptions  of  tradition  on 
this  point. 

"The  original  temptation,  by  which  Satan  drew  our  first  parents 
from  their  duty,  and  led  them  to  transgress  the  only  prohibition 
which  God  had  imposed,  is  described  in  the  first  pages  of  Scripture ; 
and  it  is  repeated,  under  much  disguise,  in  many  fables  of  classical 
mythology. 

"  Origen  considers  the  allegorical  relations  furnished  by  Plato,  with 
respect  to  Porus  tempted  by  Penia  to  sin  when  intoxicated  in  the  garden 
of  Jove,  as  a  disfigured  histoiy  of  the  fall  of  man  in  paradise.  It  seems 
to  have  been  blended  with  the  story  of  Lot  and  his  daughters.  Plato 
might  have  acquired  in  Egypt  the  knowledge  of  the  original  circum- 
stances  of  the  fall,  and  have  produced  them,  under  the  veil  of  allegory, 
that  he  might  not  offend  the  Greeks  by  a  direct  extract  from  the  Jewish 
Scriptures.  The  heathen  notions  with  respect  to  the  Elysian  fields, 
the  garden  of  Adonis,  and  that  of  Hesperides,  in  which  the  fruit  was 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  29 

watched  by  a  serpent,  were  probably  borrowed  from  the  sacred  accounts, 
or  from  traditional  reports  with  respect  lo  paradise. 

"  The  worship  estabhshed  toward  the  evil  spirit  by  his  contrivance,  some- 
times under  the  very  appearance  in  which  he  seduced  our  first  parents, 
is  to  be  found  among  the  Phenicians  and  Egyptians.  The  general 
notion  of  the  serpent  as  a  mysterious  symbol  annexed  to  the  heathen 
deities ;  and  the  invocation  of  Eve  in  the  Bacchanalian  orgies,  (with  the 
production  of  a  serpent,  consecrated  as  an  emblem,  to  public  view,) 
seems  to  bear  some  relation  to  the  history  of  the  first  temptation,  which 
introduced  sin  and  death  into  the  world.  The  account  of  discord  being 
cast  out  from  heaven,  referred  to  by  Agamemnon,  in  the  nineteenth 
book  of  Homer's  lUad,  has  been  thought  to  be  a  corrupt  tradition  of  the 
fall  of  the  evil  angels.  Claudian  shows  an  acquaintance  with  the  cir- 
cumstances  of  the  seduction  of  man,  and  of  an  ejection  from  paradise, 
and  his  description  seems  to  have  furnished  subjects  of  imitation  to 
Milton. 

"It  has  been  imagined  that  the  Indians  entertained  some  notions, 
founded  on  traditionary  accounts,  of  paradise  :  and  the  representations 
of  the  serpent  under  the  female  form,  and  styled  the  Mexican  Eve,  are 
said  to  be  found  in  the  symbolical  paintings  of  Mexico. 

"  The  original  perfection  of  man,  the  corruption  of  human  nature 
resulting  from  the  fall,  and  the  increasing  depravity  which  proceeded 
with  augmented  violence  from  generation  to  generation,  are  to  be  found 
in  various  parts  of  profane  literature.  Chryalus,  the  Pythagorean, 
declared  that  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God.  Cicero  (as  well  as 
Ovid)  speaks  of  man  as  created  erect,  as  if  God  excited  him  to  look  up 
to  his  former  relation  and  ancient  abode.  The  loss  of  his  resemblance 
to  God  was  supposed  to  have  resulted  from  disobedience,  and  was  con- 
sidered as  so  universal,  that  it  was  generally  admitted,  as  it  is  expressed 
by  Horace,  that  no  man  was  born  without  vices.  The  conviction  of  a 
gradual  deterioration  from  age  to  age — of  a  change  from  a  golden 
period,  by  successive  transitions,  to  an  iron  depravity — of  a  lapse  from  a 
state  devoid  of  guilt  and  fear,  to  times  filled  with  iniquity,  was  universally 
entertained. 

"  Descriptions  to  this  effect  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  almost 
all  the  poets,  and  they  are  confirmed  by  the  reports  of  philosophers  and 
historians.  Providence  seems  to  have  drawn  evidence  of  the  guilt  of 
men  from  their  own  confessions,  and  to  have  preserved  their  testimonies 
for  the  conviction  of  subsequent  times."  {Graifs  Connection.) 

In  the  Gothic  mythology,  which  seems  to  have  been  derived  from  the 
east,  Thor  is  represented  as  the  first  born  of  the  supreme  God,  cmd  is 
styled  in  the  Edda  tJie  eldest  of  sons.  He  was  esteemed  a  middle  divi.^ 
nity,  a  mediator  between  God  and  mem.  With  respect  to  his  actions^ 
he  is  said  to  have  wrestled  with  death,  and,  in  the  struggle;  to  have  beer. 

2 


30  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

brought  upon  one  knee ;  to  have  bruised  the  head  of  the  serpent  with 
his  mace ;  and,  in  his  final  engagement  with  that  monster,  to  have  beat 
him  to  the  earth  and  slain  him.  This  victory,  however,  is  not  obtained 
but  at  the  expense  of  his  own  Ufe ; — "  RecoiUng  back  nine  steps,  he 
falls  dead  upon  the  spot,  suffocated  with  the  floods  of  venom  which  the 
serpent  vomits  forth  upon  him."  Much  the  same  notion,  we  are 
informed,  is  prevalent  in  the  mythology  of  the  Hindoos. — "  Two  sculp, 
tured  figures  are  yet  extant  in  one  of  their  oldest  pagodas,  the  former 
of  which  represents  Creeshna,  an  incarnation  of  their  mediatorial  god 
VeeshnUf  trampfing  on  the  crushed  head  of  the  serpent ;  while  in  the 
latter  it  is  seen  encircling  the  deity  in  its  folds,  and  biting  his  heel." 
An  engraving  of  this  curious  sculpture  is  given  in  Moore's  Hindu 
Pantheon. 

As  to  those  who  would  interpret  the  account,  the  literal  meaning  of 
which  we  have  endeavoured  to  establish,  partly  literally,  and  partly 
allegorically,  a  satisfactory  answer  is  given  in  the  following  observations 
of  Bishop  Horsley  : — 

"  No  writer  of  true  history  would  mix  plain  matter  of  fact  with  alle- 
gory in  one  continued  narrative,  without  any  intimation  of  a  transition 
from  one  to  the  other.  If,  therefore,  any  part  of  this  narrative  be 
matter  of  fact,  no  part  is  allegorical.  On  the  other  hand,  if  any  part 
be  allegorical,  no  part  is  naked  matter  of  fact :  and  the  consequence  of 
this  will  be,  that  every  thing  in  every  part  of  the  whole  narrative  must 
be  allegorical.  If  the  formation  of  the  woman  out  of  the  man  be  alle- 
gory, the  woman  must  be  an  allegorical  woman.  The  man  therefore 
must  be  an  allegorical  man  ;  for  of  such  a  man  only  the  allegorical 
woman  will  be  a  meet  companion.  If  the  man  is  allegorical,  his  para- 
dise will  be  an  allegorical  garden ;  the  trees  that  grow  in  it,  allegorical 
trees ;  the  rivers  that  watered  it,  allegorical  rivers ;  and  thus  we  may 
ascend  to  the  very  beginning  of  the  creation  ;  and  conclude  at  last,  that 
the  heavens  are  allegorical  heavens,  and  the  earth  an  allegorical  earth. 
Thus  the  whole  history  of  the  creation  will  be  an  allegory,  of  which  the 
real  subject  is  not  disclosed ;  and  in  this  absurdity  the  scheme  of  alle= 
gorizing  ends."  {Horsley'' s  Sermons.) 

But  though  the  literal  sense  of  the  history  is  thus  established,  yet  that 
it  has  in  several  parts,  but  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  literal  inter- 
pretation, a  mystical  and  higher  sense  than  the  letter,  is  equally  to  be 
proved  from  the  Scriptures  ;  and,  though  some  writers,  who  have  main- 
tained the  literal  interpretation  inviolate,  have  run  into  unauthorized 
fancies  in^  their  interpretation  of  the  mystical  sense,  that  is  no  reason 
why  we  ought  not  to  go  to  the  full  length  to  which  the  light  of  the 
Scriptures,  an  infallible  comment  upon  themselves,  will  conduct  us. 
It  is,  as  we  have  seen,  matter  of  established  history,  that  our  first 

parents  were  prohibited  from  the  tree  of  knowledge,  and,  after  their  fall, 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  31 

were  excluded  from  the  tree  of  life  ;  that  they  were  tempted  by  a  ser- 
pent ;  and  that  various  maledictions  were  passed  upon  them,  and  upon 
the  instrument  of  their  seduction.  But,  rightly  to  understand  this 
history,  it  is  necessary  to  recollect — that  man  was  in  a  state  of  trial ; — 
that  the  prohibition  of  a  certain  fruit  was  but  one  part  of  the  law  under 
which  he  was  placed  ; — that  the  serpent  was  but  the  instrument  of  the 
real  tempter ;  and  that  the  curse  pronounced  on  the  instrument  was 
symboUcal  of  the  punishment  reserved  for  the  agent. 

The  first  of  these  particulars  appears  on  the  face  of  the  history-,  and 
to  a  state  of  trial  the  power  of  moral  freedom  was  essential.  This  is  a 
subject  on  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  more  at  large  in  the 
sequel ;  but,  that  the  power  of  choosing  good  and  evil  was  vested  with 
our  first  parents  is  as  apparent  fi'om  the  account  as  that  they  were 
placed  under  rule  and  restraint.  In  vain  were  they  commanded  to 
obey,  if  obedience  were  impossible  ;  in  vain  placed  under  prohibition, 
if  they  had  no  power  to  resist  temptation.  Both  would,  indeed,  have 
been  unworthy  the  Divine  legislator ;  and  if  this  be  allowed,  then  their 
moral  freedom  must  also  be  conceded.  They  are  contemplated 
throughout  the  whole  transaction,  not  as  instruments,  but  as  actors,  and 
as  such,  capable  of  reward  and  punishment.  Commands  are  issued  to 
them ;  which  supposes  a  power  of  obedience,  either  original  and  per- 
manent in  themselves,  or  derived,  by  the  use  of  means,  from  God,  and, 
therefore,  attainable  ;  and  however  the  question  may  be  darkened  by 
metaphysical  subtleties,  the  power  to  obey  necessarily  implied  the  power 
to  refuse  and  rebel.  The  promised  continuance  of  their  happiness, 
which  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  reward,  implies  the  one ;  the 
actual  infliction  of  punishment  as  certainly  includes  the  other. 

The  power  of  obeying  and  the  power  of  disobeying  being  then  mutu- 
ally  involved,  that  which  determines  to  the  one  or  to  the  other,  is  the 
will.  For,  if  it  were  some  power,  ab  extra,  operating  necessarily,  man 
would  no  longer  be  an  actor,  but  be  reduced  to  the  mere  condition  of  a 
patient,  the  mere  instrument  of  another.  This  does  not,  however,  shut 
out  solicitation  and  strong  influence  from  without,  provided  it  be 
allowed  to  be  resistible,  either  by  man's  own  strength,  or  by  strength 
from  a  higher  source,  to  which  he  may  have  access,  and  by  which  he 
may  fortify  himself.  But  as  no  absolute  control  can  be  externally 
exerted  over  man's  actions,  and  he  remain  accountable ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  as  his  actions  are  in  fact  controllable  in  a  manner  con- 
sistent with  his  free  agency,  we  must  look  for  this  power  in  his  own 
mind  ;  and  the  only  faculty  which  he  possesses,  to  which  any  such 
property  can  be  attributed,  is  called,  for  that  very  reason,  and  because 
of  that  very  quality,  his  will  or  choice  ;  a  power  by  which,  in  that 
state  of  completeness  and  excellence  in  which  Adam  was  created,  he 
must  be  supposed  to  be  able  to  command  his  thoughts,  his  desires, 

2 


32  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

his  words,  and  his  conduct,  however  excited,  with  an  absolute  sove- 
reignty. (4) 

This  faculty  of  willing,  indeed,  appears  essential  to  a  rational  being, 
in  whatever  rank  he  may  be  placed.  "  Every  rational  being,"  says  Dr. 
Jenkins,  very  justly,  [Reasonableness  of  Christian  Religion,)  "  must 
naturally  have  a  liberty  of  choice,  that  is,  it  must  have  a  will  to  choose 
as  well  as  an  understanding  to  reason ;  because,  a  faculty  of  understand- 
ing, if  left  to  itself  without  a  will  to  determine  it,  must  always  think  of 
the  same  objects,  or  proceed  in  a  continued  series  and  connection  of 
thoughts,  without  any  end  or  design,  which  would  be  labour  in  vain, 
and  tedious  thoughtfuhiess  to  no  purpose."  But,  though  will  be  essen- 
tial to  rational  existence,  and  freedom  of  will  to  a  creature  placed  in  a 
state  of  trial,  yet  the  degree  of  external  influence  upon  its  determina- 
tions, through  whatever  means  it  may  operate,  may  be  very  different 
both  in  kind  and  degree  ;  which  is  only  saying,  in  other  words,  that  the 
circumstances  of  trial  may  be  varied,  and  made  more  easy  or  more 
difficult  and  dangerous,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  great  Governor  and  Lord 
of  all.  Some  who  have  written  on  this  subject,  seem  to  have  carried 
their  views  of  the  circumstances  of  the  paradisiacal  probation  too  high  ; 
others  have  not  placed  them  high  enough.  The  first  have  represented 
our  first  parents  to  have  been  so  exclusively  intellectual  and  devotional, 
as  to  be  almost  out  of  the  reach  of  temptation  from  sense  and  passion ; 
others,  as  approximating  too  nearly  to  their  mortal  and  corrupt  descend- 
ants. This,  however,  is  plain,  from  the  Scriptures,  the  guide  we  ought 
scrupulously  to  follow,  that  they  were  subject  to  temptation,  or  solicita- 
tion of  the  will,  from  intellectual  j)ride,  from  sense,  and  from  passion. — - 
The  two  first  operated  on  Eve,  and  probably  also  on  Adam ;  to  which 
was  added,  in  him,  a  passionate  subjection  to  the  wishes  of  his  wife.  (5) 
If,  then,  these  are  the  facts  of  their  temptation,  the  circumstances  of 
their  trial  are  apparent.  "  The  soul  of  man,"  observes  Stillingfleet, 
{Origines  SacnB,)  "  is  seated  in  the  middle,  as  it  were,  between  those 
more  excellent  beings  which  live  perpetually  above,  with  which  it  par- 
takes in  the  subhmity  of  its  nature  and  understanding  ;  and  those  infe- 
rior terrestrial  beings  with  which  it  communicates  through  the  vital 
union  which  it  has  with  the  body,  and  that  by  reason  of  its  natural 
freedom,  it  is  sometimes  assimilated  to  the  one  and  sometimes  to  the 
other  of  these  extremes.     We  must  observe  farther,  that,  in  this  com- 

(4)  '•  Impulsus  etsi  vehemens  valde  atque  potens  esset,  voluntatis  tamen  impe- 
rio  atque  arbitrio  semper  egressus  ejus  in  actum  subjiciebatur.  Poterat  enim 
voluntas,  divinae  voluntatis  consideratione  armata,  resistere  illi,  eumque  in  ordi- 
nem  ista  vi  redigere ;  alioquin  enim  frustanea  fuisset  legislatio,  qua  afFectus 
circumscribebatur  et  refraenabatur."  {Episcopius,  Disputatio  ix.) 

(5)  "  Accessit  in  Adamo  specialis  quidam  conjugis  propriae  amor,  quo  adductus 
in  gratiani  illius,  alFectui  suo  proclivius  indulsit,  et  tcntationi  sathanae  facilius 
cessit  auremque  praebuit."  {Episcopius,  Disputatio  ix.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  33 

pound  nature  of  ours,  there  are  several  powers  and  faculties,  several 
passions  and  affections,  differing  in  their  nature  and  tendency,  according 
as  they  result  from  the  soul  or  body ;  that  each  of  these  has  its  proper 
object,  in  a  due  application  to  which  it  is  easy  and  satisfied  ;  that  they 
are  none  of  them  sinful  in  themselves,  but  may  be  instruments  of  much 
good,  when  rightly  applied,  as  well  as  occasion  great  mischief  by  a 
misappUcation :  whereupon  a  considerable  part  of  virtue  will  consist  in 
regulating  them,  and  in  keeping  our  sensitive  part  subject  to  the  rational. 
This  is  the  original  constitution  of  our  nature ;  and,  since  the  first  man 
was  endowed  with  the  powers  and  faculties  of  the  mind,  and  had  the 
same  dispositions  and  inclinations  of  body,  it  cannot  be  but  that  he  must 
have  been  liable  to  the  same  sort  of  temptations,  and  consequently, 
capable  of  complying  with  the  dictates  of  sense  and  appetite,  contrary 
to  the  direction  of  reason  and  the  conviction  of  his  own  mind  :  and 
to  this  cause  the  Scripture  seems  to  ascribe  the  commission  of  the  first 
sin,  when  it  tells  us,  that  the  woman  saw  the  tree,  that  it  was  good  for 
food,  and  pleasant  to  the  eye,  and  desirable  to  male  one  wise,  i.  e.  it  had 
several  qualities  that  were  adapted  to  her  natural  appetites ;  was  beau- 
tiful to  the  sight,  and  delightful  to  the  taste,  and  improving  to  the  under- 
standing, which  both  answered  the  desire  of  knowledge  implanted  in 
her  spiritual,  and  the  love  of  sensual  pleasure,  resulting  from  her  animal 
part ;  and  these  heightened  by  the  suggestions  of  the  tempter,  abated  the 
horror  of  God's  prohibition,  and  induced  her  to  act  contrary  to  his 
express  command." 

It  is,  therefore,  manifest,  that  the  state  of  trial  in  which  our  first 
parents  were  placed  was  one  which  required,  in  order  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  virtue,  vigilance,  prayer,  resistance,  and  the  active  exercise  of 
the  dominion  of  the  will  over  solicitation.  No  creature  can  be  abso- 
lutely perfect  because  it  is  finite ;  and  it  would  appear,  from  the  exam- 
ple of  our  first  parents,  that  an  innocent,  and,  in  its  kind,  a  perfect 
rational  being,  is  kept  from  falling  only  by  "  taking  hold"  on  God ;  and 
as  this  is  an  act,  there  must  be  a  determination  of  the  will  to  it,  and  so 
when  the  least  carelessness,  the  least  tampering  with  the  desire  of 
forbidden  gratifications  is  induced,  there  is  always  an  enemy  at  hand  to 
make  use  of  the  opportunity  to  darken  the  judgment  and  to  accelerate 
the  progress  of  evil.  Thus  "  when  desire  is  conceived,  it  bringeth 
forth  sin,  and  sin,  when  it  is  finished,  bringeth  forth  death."  This  is 
the  only  account  we  can  obtain  of  the  origin  of  evil,  and  it  resolves 
itself  into  three  principles  : — 1.  The  necessary  finiteness,  and,  therefore, 
imperfection  in  degree  of  created  natures.  2.  The  liberty  of  choice, 
which  is  essential  to  rational,  accountable  beings.  3.  The  influence 
of  temptation  on  the  will.  That  Adam  was  so  endowed  as  to  have 
resisted  the  temptation,  is  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  justice  of  his  Maker 
throughout  this  tiansactiott ;  that  his  circumstances  of  trial  were  made 

Vol.  II.  3 


34  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

precisely  what  they  were,  is  to  be  resolved  into  a  wisdom ,  the  full  mani- 
festation of  which  is,  probably,  left  to  another  state,  and  will,  doubtless, 
there  have  its  full  declaration. 

The  following  acute  observations  of  Bishop  Butler  may  assist  us  to 
conceive  how  possible  it  is  for  a  perfectly  innocent  being  to  fall  under 
the  power  of  evil,  whenever  a  vigilant  and  resisting  habit  is  not  per- 
fectly  and  absolutely  persevered  in  : — "  This  seems  distinctly  conceiva- 
ble, from  the  very  nature  of  particular  affections  and  propensions. 
For,  suppose  creatures  intended  for  such  a  particular  state  of  life,  for 
which  such  propensions  were  necessary  :  suppose  them  endowed  with 
such  propensions,  together  with  moral  understanding,  as  well  including 
a  practical  sense  of  virtue,  as  a  speculative  perception  of  it ;  and  that 
all  these  several  principles,  both  natural  and  moral,  forming  an  inward 
constitution  of  mind,  were  in  the  most  exact  proportion  possible,  i.  e. 
in  a  proportion  the  most  exactly  adapted  to  their  intended  state  of 
life :  such  creatures  would  be  made  upright,  or  finitely  perfect.  Now 
particular  propensions,  from  their  very  nature,  must  be  felt,  the  objects 
of  them  being  present ;  though  they  cannot  be  gratified  at  all,  or  not 
with  the  allowance  of  the  moral  principle.  But,  if  they  can  be  gratified 
without  its  allowance,  or  by  contradicting  it ;  then  they  must  be  con- 
ceived to  have  some  tendency,  in  how  low  a  degree  soever,  yet  some 
tendency,  to  induce  persons  to  such  forbidden  gratifications.  This  ten- 
dency, in  some  one  particular  propension,  may  be  increased  by  the 
greater  frequency  of  occasions  naturally  exciting  it,  than  of  occasions 
exciting  others.  The  least  voluntary  indulgence  in  forbidden  circum- 
stances, though  but  in  thought,  will  increase  this  wrong  tendency  ;  and 
may  increase  it  farther,  till,  peculiar  conjunctions  perhaps  conspiring,  it 
becomes  effect ;  and  danger  from  deviating  from  right,  ends  in  actual 
deviation  from  it ;  a  danger  necessarily  arising  from  the  very  nature 
of  propension ;  and  which,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  prevented, 
though  it  might  have  been  escaped,  or  got  innocently  through.  The 
case  would  be,  as  if  we  were  to  suppose  a  straight  path  marked  out  for 
a  person,  in  which  such  a  degree  of  attention  would  keep  him  steady : 
but  if  he  would  not  attend  in  this  degree,  any  one  of  a  thousand  objects, 
catching  his  eye,  might  lead  him  out  of  it.  Now  it  is  impossible  to  say, 
how  much  even  the  first  full  overt  act  of  irregularity  might  disorder  the 
constitution  ;  unsettle  the  adjustments,  and  alter  the  proportions,  which 
formed  it,  and  in  which  the  uprightness  of  its  make  consisted  :  but 
repetition  of  irregularities  would  produce  habits,  and  thus  the  consti- 
tution would  be  spoiled,  and  creatures  made  upright,  become  corrupt, 
and  depraved  in  their  settled  character,  proportionably  to  their  repeated 
irregularities  in  occasional  acts."  [Analogy.) 

These  observations  are  general,  and  are  introduced  only  to  illustrate 
the  point,  that  we  may  conceive  of  a  creature  being  made  innocent,  and 


SECOJfD. 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  35 


yet  still  dependent  upon  the  exercise  of  caution  for  its  preservation 
from  moral  corruption  and  offence.  It  was  not,  in  fact,  by  the  slow  and 
almost  imperceptible  formation  of  evil  habits,  described  in  the  extract 
just  given,  by  which  Adam  fell ;  that  is  but  one  way  in  which  we  may 
conceive  it  possible  for  sin  to  enter  a  holy  souh  He  was  exposed  to  the 
wiles  of  a  tempter,  and  his  fall  was  sudden.  But  this  exposure  to  a  par- 
ticular danger  was  only  a  circumstance  in  his  condition  of  probation.  It 
was  a  varied  mode  of  subjecting  the  will  to  solicitation  ;  but  no  necessity 
of  yielding  was  laid  upon  man  in  consequence  of  this  circumstance. 
From  the  histoiy  we  learn  that  the  devil  used  not  force  but  persuasion, 
which  involves  no  necessity  ;  and  that  the  devil  cannot  force  men  to  sin 
is  sufficiently  plain  from  this,  that,  such  is  his  malevolence,  that  if  he 
could  render  sin  inevitable,  he  would  not  resort  to  persuasion  and  the 
sophistry  of  error  to  accomplish  an  end  more  directly  within  his 
reach.  (6) 

The  prohibition  under  which  our  first  parents  were  placed  has  been 
the  subject  of  many  "  a  fool-born  jest,"  and  the  threatened  punishment 
has  been  argued  to  be  disproportioned  to  the  offence.  Such  objections 
are  easily  dissipated.  We  have  already  seen,  that  all  rational  creatures 
are  under  a  law  which  requires  supreme  love  to  God  and  entire  obedience 
to  his  commands  ;  and  that,  consequently,  our  first  parents  were  placed 
under  this  equitable  obligation.  We  have  also  seen  that  all  specific 
laws  emanate  from  this  general  law ;  that  they  are  manifestations  of  it, 
and  always  suppose  it.  The  decalogue  was  such  a  manifestation  of  it 
to  the  Jews,  and  the  prohibition  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  is  to  be  con- 
sidered in  the  same  light.  Certainly  this  restraint  presupposed  a  right 
in  God  to  command,  a  duty  in  the  creatures  to  obey  ;  and  the  particular 
precept  was  but  the  exercise  of  that  previous  right  which  was  vested  in 
him,  and  the  enforcement  of  that  previous  obligation  upon  them.  To 
suppose  it  to  be  the  only  rule  under  which  our  first  parents  were  placed 
would  be  absurd  ;  for  then  it  would  follow,  that  if  they  had  become  sen- 
sual in  the  use  of  any  other  food  than  that  of  the  prohibited  tree ;  or  if 
they  had  refused  worship  and  honour  to  God,  their  Creator ;  or  if  they 
had  become  "hateful,  and  hating  one  another,"  these  would  not  have 
been  sins.  This  precept  was,  however,  made  prominent  by  special 
injunction ;  and  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  was,  as  the  event  showed,  a 
sufficient  test  of  their  obedience. 

The  objection  that  it  was  o;  positive,  and  not  a  moi'al  precept,  deserves 
to  be  for  a  moment  considered.  The  difference  between  the  two  is, 
that  "  moral  precepts  are  those  the  reasons  of  which  we  see ;  positive 
precepts  those,  the  reasons  of  which  we  do  not  see.    Moral  duties  arise 

(6)  "  Diabolus  causa  talis  statui  non  potest ;  gina  ille  suasione  sola  usus  legi- 
tur :  suasio  aiitem  necessitatera  nullam  affert,  sed  moraliter  tantum  voluntatera 
ad  se  allicere  atqvre  attractiere  conatur."  (Episcopius.) 


36  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

out  of  the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  prior  to  external  command :  positive 
duties  do  not  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  from  external  com- 
mand ;  nor  would  they  be  duties  at  all,  were  it  not  for  such  command 
received  from  him  whose  creatures  and  subjects  we  are."  {Butler^s 
Analogy.)  It  has,  however,  been  justty  observed  that,  since  positive  pre- 
cepts have  somewhat  of  a  moral  nature,  we  may  see  the  reasons  of  them 
considered  in  this  view,  and,  so  far  as  we  discern  the  reasons  of  both, 
moral  and  positive  precepts  are  ahke.  In  the  case  in  question  no  just 
objection,  certainly,  can  be  made  against  the  making  a  positive  precept 
the  special  test  of  the  obedience  of  our  first  parents.  In  point  of  obli- 
gation, positive  precepts  rest  upon  the  same  ground  as  moral  ones, 
namely,  the  will  of  God.  Granting,  even,  that  we  see  no  reason  for 
them,  this  does  not  alter  the  case  ;  we  are  bound  to  obey  our  Creator, 
both  as  matter  of  right  and  matter  of  gratitude ;  and  the  very  essence 
of  sin  consists  in  resisting  the  will  of  God.  Even  the  reason  of  moral 
precepts,  their  fitness,  suitableness,  and  influence  upon  society,  do  not 
constitute  them  absolutely  obligatory  upon  us.  The  obligation  rests 
upon  their  being  made  law  by  the  authority  of  God.  Their  fitness,  &c, 
may  be  the  reasons  why  he  has  made  them  parts  of  his  law ;  but  it  is 
the  promulgation  of  his  will  which  makes  the  law  and  brings  us  under 
obligation.  In  this  respect,  then,  moral  and  positive  laws  are  of  equal 
authority  when  enjoined  with  equal  exphcitness.  To  see  or  not  to  see 
the  reasons  of  the  Divine  enactments,  whether  moral  or  positive,  is  a 
circumstance  which  aifects  not  the  question  of  duty.  There  is,  never- 
theless, a  distinction  to  be  made  between  positive  precepts  and  arbitrary 
ones,  which  have  no  reason  but  the  will  of  him  M'ho  enacts  them,  though, 
were  such  enjoined  by  almighty  God,  our  obligation  to  obey  would  be 
absolute.  It  is,  however,  proper  to  suppose,  that  when  the  reasons  of 
positive  precepts  are  not  seen  by  us,  they  do,  in  reality,  exist  in  those 
relations,  and  qualities,  and  habitudes  of  things  which  are  only  known 
to  God ;  for,  that  he  has  a  sufficient  reason  for  all  that  he  requires  of 
us,  is  a  conclusion  as  rational  as  it  is  pious ;  and  to  slight  positive  pre- 
cepts, therefore,  is  in  fact  to  refuse  obedience  to  the  Lawgiver  only  on 
the  proud  and  presumptuous  ground,  that  he  has  not  made  us  acquainted 
with  his  own  reasons  for  enacting  them.  Nor  is  the  institution  of  such 
precepts  without  an  obvious  general  moral  reason,  though  the  reason  for 
the  injunction  of  particular  positive  injunctions  should  not  be  explained. 
Humility,  which  is  the  root  of  all  virtue,  may,  in  some  circumstances, 
be  more  effectually  promoted  when  we  are  required  to  obey  under  the 
authority  of  God,  than  when  we  are  prompted  also  by  the  conviction  of 
the  fitness  and  excellence  of  his  commands.  It  is  true,  that  when  the 
observance  of  a  moral  command  and  a  positive  precept  come  into  such 
opposition  to  one  another  that  both  cannot  be  observed,  we  have  ex- 
amples in  Scripture  which  authorize   us  to  prefer  the  former  to  the 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  37 

latter,  as  when  our  Lord  healed  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  justified  his 
disciples  for  plucking  the  ears  of  corn  when  they  were  hungry  ;  yet,  in 
point  of  fact,  the  rigidness  which  forbade  the  doing  good  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  in  these  cases  of  necessity,  we  have  our  Lord's  authority  to  say, 
was  the  result  of  a  misinterpretation  of  the  moral  precept  itself,  and  no 
direct  infringement  of  it  was  implied  in  either  case.  Should  an  actual 
impossibiUty  occur  of  observing  two  precepts,  one  a  moral  and  the  other 
a  positive  one,  it  can  be  but  a  rare  case,  and  our  conduct  must  certainly 
be  regulated,  not  on  our  own  views  merely,  but  on  such  general  princi- 
ples as  our  now  perfect  revelation  furnishes  us  with,  and  it  is  at  our  risk 
that  we  misapply  them.  In  the  case  of  our  first  parents,  the  positive 
command  neither  did,  nor,  apparently  in  their  circumstances,  could  stand 
in  opposition  to  any  moral  injunction  contained  in  that  universal  law 
under  which  they  were  placed.  It  harmonized  perfectly  with  its  two 
great  principles,  love  to  God  and  love  to  our  neighbour,  for  both  would 
be  violated  by  disobedience ; — one,  by  rebellion  against  the  Creator ; 
the  other,  by  disregard  of  each  other's  welfare,  and  that  of  their 
posterity. 

Nor,  indeed,  was  this  positive  injunction  without  some  obvious  moral 
reason,  the  case  with  probably  all  positive  precepts  of  Divine  authority, 
when  carefully  considered.  The  ordinances  of  public  worship,  baptism 
in  the  name  of  Christ,  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  have  numerous  and  very  plain  reasons  both 
of  subjection,  recognition,  and  gratitude  ;  and  so  had  the  prohibition  of 
the  fruit  of  one  of  the  trees  of  the  garden.  The  moral  precepts  of  the 
decalogue  would,  for  the  most  part,  have  been  inappropriate  to  the  pe* 
cuUar  condition  of  the  first  pair  ; — such  as  the  prohibitions  of  polytheism ; 
of  the  use  of  idolatrous  images  ;  of  taking  the  name  of  God  in  vain ;  of 
thefl  and  adultery ;  of  murder  and  covetousness.  Thus  even  if  objectors 
were  left  at  liberty  to  attempt  to  point  out  a  better  test  of  obedience  than 
that  which  was  actually  appointed,  they  would  find,  as  in  most  such 
cases,  how  much  easier  it  is  to  object  than  to  suggest.  The  law  was, 
in  the  first  place,  simple  and  explicit ;  it  was  not  difficult  of  observation ; 
and  it  accorded  with  the  circumstances  of  those  on  whom  it  was  en- 
joined. They  were  placed  amidst  abundance  of  pleasant  and  exhilarat- 
ing fruits,  and  of  those  one  kind  only  was  reserved.  This  reser\-ation 
imphed  also  great  principles.  It  may  be  turned  into  ridicule  : — so,  by 
an  ignorant  person,  might  the  reserve  in  our  customs  of  a  pepper  com, 
or  other  quit  rent,  which  yet  are  acknowledgments  of  subjection  and 
sovereignty.  This  is  given  as  an  illustration,  not,  indeed,  as  a  parallel ; 
for  there  is  a  very  natural  view  of  this  transaction  in  paradise,  which 
gives  to  it  an  aspect  so  noble  and  dignified,  that  we  may  well  shudder 
at  the  impiety  of  that  poor  wit  by  which  it  has  been  sometimes  igno- 
rantly  assailed.     The  dominion  of  this  lower  world  had  been  given  to 


38  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

man,  but  it  is  equally  required  by  the  Divine  glory,  and  by  the  benefit 
of  creatures  themselves,  that  all  should  acknowledge  their  subjection  to 
him.  Man  was  required  to  do  this,  as  it  were,  openly,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  whole  creation,  by  a  public  token,  and  to  give  proof  of  it  by 
a  continued  abstinence  from  the  prohibited  fruit.  He  was  required  to 
do  it  also  in  a  way  suitable  to  his  excellent  nature  and  to  his  character 
as  lord  of  all  other  creatures,  by  a  free  and  voluntary  obedience,  thus 
acknowledging  the  common  Creator  to  be  his  supreme  Lord,  and  himself 
to  be  dependent  upon  his  bounty  and  favour.  In  this  view  we  can  con- 
ceive nothing  more  fitting,  as  a  test  of  obedience,  and  nothing  more 
important  than  the  moral  lesson  continually  taught  by  the  obHgation  thus 
openly  and  publicly  to  acknowledge  the  rights  and  authority  of  him  who 
was,  naturally,  the  Lord  of  all.  (7) 

The  immediate,  visible  agent  in  the  seduction  of  man  to  sin  was  the 
serpent ;  but  the  whole  testimony  of  Scripture  is  in  proof  that  the  real 
tempter  was  that  subtle  and  powerful  evil  spirit,  whose  general  appella- 
tives are  the  Devil  and  Satan.  (8)  This  shows  that  ridicule,  as  to  the 
serpent,  is  quite  misplaced,  and  that  one  of  the  most  serious  doctrines  is 
involved  in  the  whole  account, — the  doctrine  of  diabolical  influence. 
We  have  already  observed,  that  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the 
pristine  form  and  qualities  of  this  animal,  except  that  it  was  distinguished 
from  all  the  beasts  of  the  field,  which  the  Lord  God  had  made,  by  his 
'•  subtlety"  or  intelligence,  for  the  word  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  bad 
sense  ;  and  we  might,  indeed,  be  content  to  give  credit  to  Satan  for  a 
wily  choice  of  the  most  fitting  instrument  for  his  purpose.  These  are 
questions  which,  however,  sink  into  nothing  before  the  important  doc- 
trine of  the  liability  of  man,  both  in  his  primitive  and  in  his  fallen  state, 
to  temptations  marshalled  and  directed  by  a  superior,  malignant  intelli- 
gence. Of  this,  the  fact  cannot  be  doubted,  if  we  admit  the  Scriptures 
to  be  interpreted  by  any  rules  which  will  admit  them  to  be  written  for 
explicit  instruction  and  the  use  of  popular  readers ;  and,  although  we 
have  but  general  intimations  of  the  existence  of  an  order  of  apostate 
spirits,  and  know  nothing  of  the  date  of  their  creation,  or  the  circum- 
stances of  their  probation  and  fall ;  yet  this  is  clear,  that  they  are  per- 
mitted, for  their  "  time,"  to  have  influence  on  earth  ;  to  war  against  the 
virtue  and  the  peace  of  man,  though  under  constant  control  and  govem- 

(7)  "  Legem  tamen  banc  idcircp  homini  latam  fuisse  arbitramur,  ut  ei  obse- 
quendo  et  obtemperando,  palam  publiceque  veluti  testaretur,  se,  cui  dominium 
rerum  omnium  creatarum  a  Deo  delatum  erat,  Deo  tamen  ipsi  subjectum  obnoxi- 
unique  esse  ;  utque  obsequio  eodem  suo  tanquam  vasallus  et  cliens,  publico  aliquo 
recognitionis  symbolo,  profiteretur,  se  in  omnibus  Deo  suo,  tanquam  supremo 
Domino,  obtemperare  et  parere  velle  ;  id  quod  aequissimum  erat."  (Episcopius.) 

(8)  The  former  word  signifies  a  traducer  and  false  accuser,  the  latter  an 
adversary. 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  39 

ment ;  and  that  this  entered  into  the  circumstances  of  the  trial  of  our 
first  parents,  and  that  it  enters  into  ours.  In  this  part  of  the  history  of 
the  fall,  therefore,  without  giving  up  any  portion  of  the  literal  sense,  we 
must,  on  the  authority  of  other  passages  of  Scripture,  look  beyond  the 
letter,  and  regard  the  serpent  but  as  the  instrument  of  a  super-human 
tempter,  who  then  commenced  his  first  act  of  warfare  against  the  rule 
of  God  in  this  lower  world ;  and  began  a  contest,  which,  for  purposes 
of  wisdom,  to  be  hereafter  more  fully  disclosed,  he  has  been  allowed  to 
carry  on  for  ages,  and  will  still  be  permitted  to  maintain,  till  the  result 
shall  make  his  fall  more  marked,  and  bring  into  view  moral  truths  and 
principles  in  which  the  whole  universe  of  innocent  or  redeemed  creatures 
are,  probably,  to  be  instructed  to  their  eternal  advantage. 

In  like  manner,  the  malediction  pronounced  upon  the  serpent,  while  it 
is  to  be  understood  literally  as  to  that  animal,  must  be  considered  as 
teaching  more  than  the  letter  simply  expresses ;  and  the  terms  of  it  are, 
therefore,  for  the  reason  given  above,  (the  comment  found  in  other  parts 
of  Scripture,)  to  be  regarded  as  symbohcal.  "  As  the  literal  sense  does 
not  exclude  the  mystical,  the  cursing  of  the  serpent  is  a  symbol  to  us, 
and  a  visible  pledge  of  the  malediction  with  which  the  devil  is  struck  by 
God,  and  whereby  he  is  become  the  most  abominable  and  miserable  of 
all  creatures.  But  man,  by  the  help  of  the  seed  of  the  woman,  that  is, 
by  our  Saviour,  shall  bruise  his  head,  wound  him  in  the  place  that  is  most 
mortal,  and  destroy  him  with  eternal  ruin.  In  the  meantime,  the  enmity 
and  abhorrence  we  have  of  the  serpent  is  a  continual  warning  to  us  of 
the  danger  we  are  in  of  the  devil,  and  how  heartily  we  ought  to  abhor 
him  and  all  his  works."  (Archbishop  King.)  To  this  view,  indeed,  stren- 
uous objections  have  been  made  ;  and  in  order  to  get  quit  of  the  doc- 
trine of  so  early  and  significant  a  promise  of  a  Redeemer, — a  promise 
so  expressed  as  necessarily  to  imply  redemption  through  the  temporary 
suffering  of  the  Redeemer,  the  bruising  of  his  heej, — many  of  those 
who  are  willing  to  give  up  the  latter  entirely,  in  other  parts  of  the  narra- 
tive, and  to  resolve  the  whole  into  fable,  resist  this  addition  of  the  para- 
bohcal  meaning  to  the  literal,  and  contend  for  that  alone.  In  answer  to 
this,  we  may  observe, — 

1.  That,  on  the  merely  literal  interpretation  of  these  words,  the  ma.in 
instrument  of  the  transgression  would  remain  unsentenced  and  unpun- 
ished. That  instrument  v/as  the  devil,  as  already  shown,  and  who,  in 
evident  allusion  to  this  circumstance,  is  called  in  Scripture,  "  a  murderer 
from  the  beginning,"  "  a  liar  and  the  father  of  lies  ;"  "  that  old  serpent, 
called  the  devil  and  Satan,  which  deceiveth  the  whole  world  ;"  he  "  who 
sinneth  from  the  beginning ;"  so  that  whosoever  "  committeth  sin  is  of 
the  devil,"  and  consequently  our  first  parents.  It  is  also  in  plain  allu- 
sion to  this  history  and  the  bruising  of  the  head  of  the  serpent  that  the 
apostle  takes  the  phrase  of  "  bruising"  Satan  under  the  feet  of  believers. 

2 


40  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

These  passages  can  only  be  disposed  of  by  resolving  the  whole  account 
of  diabohcal  agency  in  Scripture  into  figures  of  speech ;  (the  theory 
adopted  by  Socinians,  and  which  will  be  subsequently  refuted ;)  but  if 
the  agency  of  Satan  be  allowed  in  this  transaction,  then  to  confine  our- 
selves to  the  merely  literal  sense  leaves  the  prime  mover  of  the  ofience 
without  any  share  of  the  malediction  ;  and  the  curse  of  the  serpent  must, 
therefore,  in  justice,  be  concluded  to  fall  with  the  least  weight  upon  the 
animal  instrument,  the  serpent  itself,  and  with  its  highest  emphasis  upon 
the  intelligent  and  accountable  seducer. 

2.  We  are  compelled  to  this  interpretation  by  the  reason  pf  the  case. 
That  a  higher  power  was  identified  with  the  serpent  in  the  transaction, 
is  apparent,  from  the  intelligent  an4  rational  powers  ascribed  to  the  ser- 
pent, which  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  distinction  between  man  and 
the  inferior  animals  to  attribute  to  a  mere  brute.  He  was  the  most 
"  subtle"  of  the  beasts,  ufiade  such  near  approaches  to  rationality  as  to 
be  difit  instrument  by  which  to  deceive  ;  but,  assuredly,  the  use  of  speech, 
of  reasoning  powers,  a  knowledge  of  the  Divine  law,  and  the  power  of 
seductive  artifice  to  entrap  human  beings  in  their  state  of  perfection  into 
gin  against  God,  are  not  the  faculties  of  an  irrational  animal.  The 
solemn  manner,  too,  in  which  the  Almighty  addresses  the  serpent  in 
pronouncing  the  curse,  shows  that  an  intelhgent  and  free  agent  was 
arraigned  before  him,  and  it  would,  indeed,  be  ridiculous  to  suppose  to 
the  contrary. 

3.  The  circumstances  of  our  first  parents  also  confirm  the  symbolical 
interpretation,  in  conjunction  with  the  literal  one.  This  is  shown  by 
Bishop  Sherlock  with  much  acuteness  :— 

"  They  were  now  in  a  state  of  sin,  standing  before  God  to  receive 
sentence  for  their  disobedience,  and  had  reason  to  expect  a  full  execution 
of  the  penalty  threatened.  In  the  day  tJiou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt 
surely  die.  But  God  came  in  mercy  as  well  as  judgment,  purposing 
not  only  to  punish,  but  to  restore  man.  The  judgment  is  awful  and 
severe ;  the  woman  is  doomed  to  sorrow  in  conception ;  the  man  to 
sorrow  and  travel  all  the  days  of  his  life  ;  the  ground  is  cursed  for  his 
sake  ;  and  the  end  of  the  judgment  is,  dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou 
shalt  return.  Had  they  been  left  thus,  they  might  have  continued  in 
their  labour  and  sorrow  for  their  appointed  time,  and  at  last  have  returned 
to  dust,  without  any  well-grounded  hope  or  confidence  in  God  :  they  must 
have  looked  upon  themselves  as  rejected  by  their  Maker,  delivered  up 
to  trouble  and  sorrow  in  this  world,  and  as  having  no  hope  in  any  other. 
Upon  this  ground  I  conceive  there  could  have  been  no  religion  left  in  the 
world ;  for  a  sense  of  religion  without  hope,  is  a  state  of  phrenzy  and 
distraction,  void  of  all  inducements  to  love  and  obedience,  or  any  thing 
else  that  is  praiseworthy.  If,  therefore,  God  intended  to  preserve  them 
as  objects  of  mercy,  it  was   absolutely  necessary  to  communicate- -sa 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  41 

much  hope  to  them,  as  might  be  a  rational  foundation  for  their  future 
endeavours  to  be  reconciled  to  him.  This  seems  to  be  the  'primary  in- 
tention  of  this  first  Divine  prophecy  ;  and  it  was  necessary  to  the  state 
of  the  world,  and  the  condition  of  religion,  which  could  not  possibly  have 
been  supported  without  the  communication  of  such  hopes.  The  pro- 
phecy is  excellently  adapted  to  this  purpose,  and  manifestly  conveyed 
such  hopes  to  our  first  parents.  For  let  us  consider  in  what  sense  we 
may  suppose  them  to  understand  the  prophecy.  Now  they  must  neces- 
sarily understand  the  prophecy,  either  according  to  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  words,  or  according  to  such  meaning  as  the  whole  circumstance 
of  the  transaction,  of  which  they  are  part,  does  require.  If  we  suppose 
them  to  understand  the  words  literally  only,  and  that  God  meant  them 
to  be  so  understood,  this  passage  must  appear  ridiculous.  Do  but  ima- 
gine that  you  see  God  coming  to  judge  the  oflfenders  ;  Adam  and  Eve 
before  him  in  the  utmost  distress ;  that  you  hear  God  inflicting  pains, 
and  sorrows,  and  misery,  and  death,  upon  the  first  of  human  race  ;  and 
that  in  the  midst  of  all  this  scene  of  wo  and  great  calamity,  you  hear 
him  foretelhng,  with  great  solemnity,  a  very  trivial  accident  that  should 
sometimes  happen  in  the  world  :  that  serpents  would  be  apt  to  bite  men 
by  the  heels,  and  that  men  would  be  apt  to  revenge  themselves  by  strik- 
ing them  on  the  head.  What  has  this  trifle  to  do  with  the  loss  of  man- 
kind, with  the  corruption  of  the  natural  and  moral  world,  and  the  ruin  of 
all  the  glory  and  happiness  of  the  creation  ?  Great  comfort  it  was  to 
Adam,  doubtless,  after  telling  him  that  his  days  would  be  short  and  full 
of  miseiy,  and  his  end  without  hope,  to  let  him  know  that  he  should  now 
and  then  knock  a  snake  on  the  head,  but  not  even  that,  without  paying 
dear  for  his  poor  victory,  for  the  snake  should  often  bite  him  by  the  heel. 
Adam  surely  could  not  understand  the  prophecy  in  this  sense,  though 
some  of  his  sons  have  so  understood  it.  Leaving  this,  therefore,  as  abso- 
lutelely  absurd  and  ridiculous,  let  us  consider  what  meaning  the  circum- 
stances of  the  transaction  do  necessarily  fix  to  the  words  of  this  prophecy. 
Adam  tempted  by  his  wife,  and  she  by  the  serpent,  had  fallen  from  their 
obedience,  and  were  now  in  the  presence  of  God  expecting  judgment. 
They  knew  full  well  at  this  juncture,  that  their /a/Z  was  the  victory  of  the 
serpent,  whom  by  experience  they  found  to  be  an  enemy  to  God  and  to 
man ;  to  man,  whom  he  had  ruined  by  seducing  him  to  sin ;  to  God, 
the  noblest  work  of  whose  creation  he  had  defaced.  It  could  not,  there- 
fore, but  be  some  comfort  to  them  to  hear  the  serpent  first  condemned, 
and  to  see  that,  however  he  had  prevailed  against  them,  he  had  gained 
no  victory  over  their  Maker,  who  was  able  to  assert  his  own  honour,  and 
to  punish  this  great  author  of  iniquity.  By  this  method  of  God's  proceed- 
ing they  were  secured  from  thinking  that  there  was  any  evil  being  equal 
to  the  Creator  in  power  and  dominion  :  an  opinion  which  gained  ground 
in  after  tirnes  through  the  prevalency  of  evil,  and  is,  where  it  does  pre- 

2 


42  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

vail,  destructive  of  all  true  religion.  The  belief  of  God's  supreme  domi- 
nion, which  is  the  foundation  of  all  religion,  being  thus  preserved,  it  was 
still  necessary  to  give  them  such  hopes  as  they  could  not  but  conceive, 
when  they  heard  from  the  mouth  of  God,  that  the  serpent's  victory  was 
not  a  complete  victory,  over  even  themselves  ;  that  they  and  their  pos- 
terity should  be  enabled  to  contest  his  empire  ;  and  though  they  were  to 
suffer  much  in  the  struggle,  yet  finally  they  should  prevail  and  bruise  the 
serpent's  head,  and  be  delivered  from  his  power  and  dominion  over  them. 
What  now  could  they  conceive  this  conquest  over  the  serpent  to  mean? 
Is  it  not  natural  to  expect  that  we  shall  recover  that  by  victory  which  we 
lost  by  being  defeated  ?  They  knew  that  the  enemy  had  subdued  them 
by  sin,  could  they  then  conceive  hopes  of  victory  otherwise  than  by 
righteousness  ?  They  lost  through  sin  the  happiness  of  their  creation, 
could  they  expect  less  from  the  return  of  righteousness  than  the  recovery 
of  the  blessings  forfeited  ?  What  else  but  this  could  they  expect  ?  For 
the  certain  knowledge  ihey  had  of  their  loss  when  the  serpent  prevailed, 
could  not  but  lead  them  to  a  clear  knowledge  of  what  they  should  regain 
by  prevailing  against  the  serpent.  The  language  of  this  prophecy  is 
indeed  in  part  metaphorical,  but  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  think  that  all 
metaphors  are  of  uncertain  signification ;  for  the  design  and  scope  of 
the  speaker,  with  the  circumstances  attending,  create  a  final  and  deter- 
minate sense." 

Tiie  import  of  this  prediction  appears,  from  various  allusions  of  Scrip, 
ture,  to  have  been,  that  the  Messiah,  who  was,  in  an  eminent  and  pecu- 
liar sense,  the  seed  of  the  woman,  should,  though  himself  bruised  in  the 
conflict,  obtain  a  complete  victory  over  the  malice  and  power  of  Satan, 
and  so  restore  those  benefits  to  man  which  by  sin  he  had  lost.  From 
this  time  hope  looked  forward  to  the  Great  Restorer,  and  sacrifices, 
which  are  no  otherwise  to  be  accounted  for,  began  to  be  offered,  in  pre- 
figuration  of  the  fact  and  efficacy  of  his  sufferings.  From  that  first 
promise,  that  light  of  salvation  broke  forth,  which,  by  the  increased 
illumination  of  revelation  through  following  ages,  shone  brighter  and 
brighter  to  the  perfect  day.  To  what  extent  our  first  parents  under- 
stood this  promise  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  say.  Sufficiently,  there  is 
no  doubt,  for  hope  and  faith  ;  and  that  it  might  be  the  ground  of  a  new 
dispensation  of  religion,  in  which  salvation  was  to  be  of  grace,  not  of 
works,  and  in  which  prayer  was  to  be  offered  for  all  necessary  bless- 
ings,  on  the  ground  of  pure  mercy,  and  through  the  intercession  of  an 
infinitely  worthy  Mediator.  The  Scriptures  cannot  be  explained,  unless 
this  be  admitted,  for  these  are  the  very  principles  which  are  assumed  in 
God's  government  of  man  from  the  period  of  his  fall ;  and  it  is,  there, 
fore,  probable,  that  in  those  earliest  patriarchal  ages,  of  which  we  have 
so  brief  and  rapid  an  account  in  the  writings  of  Moses,  and  which,  we 
mav,  nevertheless,  collect,  were  ages  distinguished  by  the  frequent  and 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  43 

\nsible  intercourse  of  God  and  superior  beings  with  men,  there  were  re- 
velations made  and  instructions  given  which  are  not  specifically  record- 
ed, but  which  formed  that  body  of  theology  which  is,  unquestionably, 
presupposed  by  the  whole  Mosaic  institute.  But  if  we  allow  that  this 
first  promise,  as  interpreted  by  us,  contains  more  than  our  first  parents 
can  be  supposed  to  have  discovered  in  it,  we  may  say,  with  the  prelate 
just  quoted,  "  Since  this  prophecy  has  been  plainly  fulfilled  in  Christ, 
and  by  the  event  appropriated  to  him  only,  I  would  fain  know  how  it 
comes  to  be  conceived  to  be  so  ridiculous  a  thing  in  us  to  suppose  that 
God,  to  whom  the  whole  event  was  known  from  the  beginning,  should 
make  choice  of  such  expressions  as  naturally  conveyed  so  much  know- 
ledge to  our  first  parents  as  he  intended,  and  yet  should  appear,  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  to  have  been  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  event  which  he, 
from  the  beginning,  saw,  and  which  he  intended  the  world  should  one 
day  see,  and  which,  when  they  should  see,  they  might  the  more  easily 
acknowledge  to  be  the  work  of  his  hand,  by  the  secret  evidence  which 
he  had  enclosed  from  the  days  of  old  in  the  words  of  prophecy." 

From  these  remarks  on  the  history  of  the  fall,  we  are  called  to  con- 
sider the  state  into  which  that  event  reduced  the  first  man  and  his 
posterity. 

As  to  Adam,  it  is  clear  that  he  became  liable  to  inevitable  death,  and 
that,  during  his  temporary  life,  he  was  doomed  to  severe  labour,  ex- 
pressed in  Scripture  by  eating  his  bread  in,  or  "  by  the  sweat  of  his 
brow."  These  are  incontrovertible  points  ;  but  that  the  threatening  of 
death,  as  the  penalty  of  disobedience,  included  spiritual  and  eternal 
death,  as  to  himself  and  his  posterity,  has  been,  and  continues  to  be, 
largely  and  resolutely  debated,  and  will  require  our  consideration. 

On  this  subject  the  following  are  the  leading  opinions ; — 

The  view  stated  by  Pelagius,  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century,  is  (if  he 
has  not  been  misrepresented)  that  which  is  held  by  the  modern  Soci- 
nians.  It  is,  that  though  Adam,  by  his  transgression,  exposed  himself 
to  the  displeasure  of  his  Maker,  yet  that  neither  were  the  powers  of 
his  own  nature  at  all  impaired,  nor  have  his  posterity,  in  any  sense, 
sustained  the  smallest  hurt  by  his  disobedience ;  that  he  was  created 
mortal,  and  would,  therefore,  have  died,  had  he  not  sinned  ;  and  that 
the  only  evil  he  suffered  was  his  being  expelled  from  paradise,  and  sub- 
jected to  the  discipline  of  labour.  That  his  posterity,  like  himself,  are 
placed  in  a  state  of  trial ;  that  death  to  them,  as  to  him,  is  a  natural 
iBvent ;  and  that  the  prospect  of  certain  dissolution,  joined  to  the  com- 
mon calamities  of  life,  is  favourable  to  the  cultivation  of  virtue.  By  a 
proper  attention  we  may  maintam  our  innocence  amidst  surrounding 
temptations,  and  may  also  daily  improve  in  moral  excellence,  by  the 
proper  use  of  reason  and  other  natural  powers. 

A  second  opinion  has  been  attributed  to  the  followers  of  Arminius, 

2 


44  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

on  which  a  remark  shall  just  now  be  offered.  It  has  been  thus  epito- 
mized by  Dr.  Hill : — 

"  According  to  this  opinion,  although  the  first  man  had  a  body  natu- 
rally frail  and  mortal,  his  hfe  would  have  been  for  ever  preserved  by 
the  bounty  of  his  Creator,  had  he  continued  obedient ;  and  the  instru- 
ment employed  by  God,  to  preserve  his  mortal  body  from  decay,  was 
the  fruit  of  life.  Death  was  declared  to  be  the  penalty  of  transgression ; 
and,  therefore,  as  soon  as  he  transgressed,  he  was  removed  at  a  distance 
from  the  tree  of  hfe  ;  and  his  posterity,  inheriting  his  natural  mortality, 
and  not  having  access  to  the  tree  of  life,  are  subjected  to  death.  It  is 
therefore  said  by  St.  Paul, '  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men.  In  Adam  all  die.  By 
one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one.'  These  expressions  clearly 
point  out  death  to  be  the  consequence  of  Adam's  transgression,  an  evil 
brought  upon  his  posterity  by  his  fault ;  and  this  the  Arminians  under- 
stand to  be  the  whole  meaning  of  its  being  said,  '  Adam  begat  a  son  in 
his  own  likeness,  after  his  image,'  Gen.  v,  3,  and  of  Paul  saying,  *  We 
have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthly.' 

"  It  is  admitted,  hovv-ever,  by  those  who  hold  the  opinion,  that  this 
change  upon  the  condition  of  mankind,  from  a  life  preserved  without 
end,  to  mortality,  was  most  unfavourable  to  their  moral  character.  The 
fear  of  death  enfeebles  and  enslaves  the  mind  ;  the  pursuit  of  those 
things  which  are  necessary  to  support  a  frail  perishing  life,  engrosses 
and  contracts  the  soul ;  and  the  desires  of  sensual  pleasure  are  render- 
ed more  eager  and  ungovernable,  by  the  knowledge  that  the  time  of 
enjoying  them  soon  passes  away.  Hence  arise  envying  of  those  who 
have  a  larger  share  of  the  good  things  of  this  hfe — strife  with  those 
who  interfere  in  our  enjoyments — impatience  under  restraint — and 
sorrow  and  repining  when  pleasure  is  abridged.  And  to  this  variety  of 
turbulent  passions,  the  natural  fruits  of  the  punishment  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression, there  are  also  to  be  added,  all  the  fretfulness  and  disquietude 
occasioned  by  the  diseases  and  pains  which  are  inseparable  from  the 
condition  of  a  mortal  being.  In  this  way  the  Arminians  explain  such 
expressions  as  these,  '  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sin- 
ners ;'  'all  are  under  sin;'  'behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,'  i.  e.  all 
men,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  are  bom  in  these  circumstances, — 
under  that  disposition  of  events  which  subjects  them  to  the  dominion  of 
passion,  and  exposes  them  to  so  many  temptations,  that  it  is  impossible 
for  any  man  to  maintain  his  integrity.  And  hence,  they  say,  arises 
the  necessity  of  a  Saviour,  who,  restoring  to  man  the  immortality  which 
he  had  forfeited,  may  be  said  to  have  abolished  death  ;  who  effectually 
delivers  his  followers  from  that  bondage  of  mind,  and  that  corruption 
of  character,  which  are  connected  with  the  fear  of  death  ;  who,  by  his 
perfect  obedience,  obtains  pardon  for  those  sins  into  which  they  have 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  45 

been  betrayed  by  their  condition ;  and  by  his  Spirit  enables  them  to 
overcome  the  temptations  which  human  nature  of  itself  cannot  withstand. 
"  According  to  this  opinion,  then,  the  human  race  has  suffered  uni- 
versally in  a  very  high  degree  by  the  sin  of  their  first  parent.  At  the 
same  time,  the  manner  of  their  suffering  is  analogous  to  many  circum- 
stances in  the  ordinary  dispensations  of  Providence  ;  for  we  often  see 
children,  by  the  negligence  or  fault  of  their  parents,  placed  in  situations 
very  unfavourable  both  to  their  prosperity  and  to  their  improvement ;  and 
we  can  trace  the  profligacy  of  their  character  to  the  defects  of  their 
education,  to  the  example  set  before  them  in  their  youth,  and  to  the 
multiplied  temptations  in  which,  from  a  want  of  due  attention  on  the 
part  of  others,  they  find  themselves  early  entangled."  {Lectures.) 

That  this  is  a  very  defective  view  of  the  effects  of  the  original  offence 
upon  Adam  and  his  descendants  must  be  acknowledged.  Whether  Adam, 
as  to  his  body,  became  mortal  by  positive  injlictioji,  or  by  being  excluded 
from  the  means  of  warding  off  disease  and  mortality*,  which  were  pro- 
vided in  the  tree  of  life,  is  a  speculative  point,  which  has  no  important 
theological  bearing;  but  that  the  corruption  of  our  nature,  and  not 
merely  its  greater  liability  to  be  corrupted,  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture, 
will  presently  be  shown.  However,  this  was  not  the  opinion  of  Armi- 
nius,  nor  of  his  immediate  followers.  Nor  is  it  the  opinion  of  that  large 
body  of  Christians,  often  called  Arminians,  who  follow  the  theological 
opinions  of  IMr.  V/esley.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Whitby  and  several 
divines  of  the  English  Church,  who,  though  called  Arminians,  were 
semi-Pelagians,  or  at  least  made  great  approaches  to  that  error ;  and 
the  writer  just  quoted  has  no  authority  for  giving  this  as  the  Ai-minian 
opinion,  except  the  work  of  Whitby's  entitled  Tractaius  de  Lnpiitatione 
Peccati  Adami.  In  this,  however,  he  has  followed  others,  who,  on  Whit- 
by's authority,  attribute  this  notion  not  only  to  Arminius  singly,  but  to 
the  body  of  the  remonstrants,  and  to  all  those  who,  to  this  day,  advo- 
cate  the  doctrine  of  general  redemption.  This  is  one  proof  how  little 
pains  many  divines  of  the  Calvinistic  school  have  taken  to  understand  the 
opinions  they  have  hastily  condemned  in  mass. 

Tlie  following  passages  from  the  writings  of  Arminius  will  do  justice 
to  the  character  of  that  eminent  divine  on  this  important  subject. 

In  the  15th  and  16th  propositions  of  his  7th  public  lecture  on  the  first 
sin  of  the  first  man,  he  says, — 

"  The  immediate  and  proper  effect  of  this  sin  was,  that  God  was 
offended  by  it.  For  since  the  form  of  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the 
law,  1  John  iii,  4,  such  transgression  primarily  and  immediately  impinges 
against  the  Legislator  himself.  Gen.  iii,  2  ;  and  it  impinges  against  him, 
Gen.  iii,  16,  19,  23,  24,  with  offence,  it  having  been  his  will  that  his 
law  should  not  be  infringed,  Gen.  iii,  17 :  from  which  he  conceives  a 
just  wrath,  which  is  the  second  effect  of  sin.    But  this  wrath  is  followed 

2 


46  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

by  the  infliction  of  punishment,  which  here  is  twofold  :  1.  A  Uability  to 
both  deaths,  Rom.  vi,  23.  2.  A  privation  of  that  primeval  holiness  and 
righteousness,  Luke  xix,  28,  which,  because  they  were  the  effects  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  man,  ought  not  to  remain  in  man  who  had 
fallen  from  the  favour  of  God,  and  had  incurred  his  anger.  For  that 
Spirit  is  a  seal  and  token  of  the  Divine  favour  and  benevolence,  Rom. 
viii,  14,  15;   1  Cor.  ii,  12. 

"  But  the  whole  of  this  sin  is  not  peculiar  to  our  first  parents,  but  is 
common  to  the  whole  race,  and  to  all  their  posterity,  who  at  the  time 
when  the  first  sin  was  committed,  were  in  their  loins,  and  who  after- 
ward descended  from  them  in  the  natural  mode  of  propagation,  according 
to  the  primitive  benediction.  For,  in  Adam,  all  have  sinned,  Rom.  v, 
12.  Whatever  punishment,  therefore,  was  inflicted  on  our  first  parents, 
has  also  pervaded  all  their  posterity,  and  still  oppresses  them :  so  that 
all  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  Eph.  ii,  31,  obnoxious  to  condemna- 
tion and  to  death  temporal  and  eternal,  Rom.  v,  12,  and  are,  lastly, 
devoid  of  that  [primeval]  righteousness  and  holiness :  with  which  evils 
they  would  continue  oppressed  for  ever,  unless  they  were  delivered 
from  them  by  Jesus  Christ ;  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever  !  Rom. 
v,  18,  19." 

In  the  epistle  which  Arminius  addressed  to  Hippolytus,  describing 
grace  and  free  will,  his  views  on  this  subject  are  still  more  clearly 
expressed : — 

"  It  is  impossible  for  free  will  without  grace  to  begin  or  perfect  any 
true  or  spiritual  good.  I  say,  the  grace  of  Christ  which  pertains  to 
regeneration  is  simply  and  absolutely  necessary  for  the  illumination  of 
the  mind,  the  ordering  of  the  affections,  and  the  inchnation  of  the  will 
to  that  which  is  good.  It  is  that  which  operates  on  the  mind,  the 
affections,  and  the  will ;  which  infuses  good  thoughts  into  the  mind, 
inspires  good  desires  into  the  affections,  and  leads  the  will  to  execute 
good  thoughts  and  good  desires.  It  prevents,  (goes  before,)  accompa- 
nies, and  follows.  It  excites,  assists,  works  in  us  to  will,  and  works 
with  us,  that  we  may  not  will  in  vain.  It  averts  temptations,  stands  by 
and  aids  os  in  temptations,  supports  us  against  the  flesh,  the  world,  and 
Satan ;  and  in  the  conflict,  it  grants  us  to  enjoy  the  victory.  It  raises 
up  again  those  who  are  conquered  and  fallen,  it  establishes  them,  and 
endues  them  with  new  strength,  and  renders  them  more  cautious.  It 
begins,  promotes,  perfects,  and  consummates  salvation.  I  confess,  that 
the  mind  of  the  natural  {animcdis)  and  carnal  man  is  darkened,  his 
affections  are  depraved  and  disordered,  his  will  is  refractory,  and  that 
the  man  is  dead  in  sins.^^ 

And,  in  his  11th  Pubhc  Disputation  on  the  Free  will  of  Man,  and  its 
powers,  he  says,  "  that  the  will  of  man,  with  respect  to  true  good,  is 
not  onlv  wounded,  bruised,  inferior,  crooked,  and  attenuated ;  but  it  is 
2  ' 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  47 

likewise  captivated^  destroyed,  and  lost ;  and  has  no  powers  whatever, 
except  such  as  are  excited  by  grace." 

The  doctrine  of  the  remonstrants  is,  "  That  God,  to  the  glory  of  his 
abundant  goodness,  having  decreed  to  make  man  after  his  own  image, 
and  to  give  him  an  easy  and  most  equal  law,  and  add  thereunto  a 
threatening  of  death  to  the  transgressors  thereof,  and  foreseeing  that 
Adam  would  wilfully  transgress  the  same,  and  thereby  make  himself  and 
his  posterity  liable  to  condemnation  ;  though  God  was,  notwithstanding, 
mercifully  affected  toward  man,  yet,  out  of  respect  to  his  justice  and 
truth,  he  would  not  give  way  to  his  mercy  to  save  man  till  his  justice 
should  be  satisfied,  and  his  serious  hatred  of  sin  and  love  of  righteous- 
ness should  be  made  known."  The  condemnation  here  spoken  of,  as 
affecting  Adam  and  his  posterity,  is  to  be  understood  of  more  than  the 
death  of  the  body,  as  being  opposed  to  the  salvation  procured  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ ;  and,  with  respect  to  the  moral  state  of  human  nature 
since  the  fall,  the  third  of  their  articles,  exhibited,  at  the  synod  of  Dort, 
states,  that  tl^  remonstrants  "  hold  that  a  man  hath  not  saving  faith  of 
himself,  nor  from  the  power  of  his  own  free  will,  seeing  that,  while  he 
is  in  the  state  of  sin,  he  cannot  of  himself,  nor  by  himself,  think,  will, 
or  do  any  saving  good."  (9) 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  though  often  claimed  as 
exclusively  Calvinistic  on  this  point,  accords  perfectly  with  true  Armi. 
nianism.  "  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  or  imitation  of 
Adam,  as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk ;  but  it  is  the  fault  or  corruption 
of  the  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  offspring 
of  Adam,  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness, 
and  is  of  his  own  nature  only  inchned  to  evil,"  <^c.  Some  of  the  divines 
of  this  Church  have,  on  the  other  hand,  endeavoured  to  soften  this 
article,  by  availing  themselves  of  the  phrase  "  very  far  gone,"  as  though 
it  did  not  express  a  total  defection  from  original  righteousness.  The 
articles  were,  however,  subscribed  by  the  two  houses  of  convocation,  in 
1571,  in  Latin  and  Enghsh  also,  and  therefore  both  copies  are  equally 
authentic.  The  Latin  copy  expresses  this  phrase  by  "  quam  longissime 
distet ;"  which  is  as  strong  an  expression  as  that  language  can  furnish, 
fixes  the  sense  of  the  compilers  on  this  point,  and  takes  away  the  argu- 
ment which  rests  on  the  alleged  equivocalness  of  the  English  version. 
Nor  does  there  appear  any  material  discrepancy  between  this  statement 
of  the  fallen  condition  of  man  and  the  Augsburgh  Confession,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  French  Churches,  that  of  the  Calvinistic  Church  of  Scotland, 
and,  so  far  as  the  moral  state  of  man  only  is  concerned,  the  views  of 
Calvin  himself.  There  are,  it  is  true,  such  expressions  as  "  contagion," 
"infection,"  and  the  like,  in  some  of  these  formularies,  which  are  some- 

(9)  See  tenets  of  the  remonstrants,  in  Nichol's  "  Cah'inism  and  Arminianism 
CoRjpared.^ 

2 


48  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

what  equivocal,  as  bearing  upon  a  point  from  which  some  divines,  both 
Arminians  and  Calvinists,  have  dissented, — the  direct  corruption  of 
human  nature  by  a  sort  of  judicial  act ;  but,  this  point  excepted,  to 
which  we  shall  subsequently  turn  our  attention,  the  true  Arminian,  as 
fully  as  the  Calvinist,  admits  the  doctrine  of  the  total  depravity  of  human 
nature  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  our  first  parents ;  and  is  indeed 
enabled  to  carry  it  through  his  system  with  greater  consistency  than 
the  Calvinist  himself.  For,  while  the  latter  is  obliged,  in  order  to 
account  for  certain  good  dispositions  and  occasional  religious  inclina- 
tions in  those  who  never  give  any  evidence  of  their  actual  conversion 
to  God,  to  refer  them  to  nature,  and  not  to  grace,  which,  according  to 
them,  is  not  given  to  the  reprobate,  the  believer  in  general  redemption 
maintains  the  total  incapacity  of  unassisted  nature  to  produce  such 
effects,  and  attributes  them  to  that  Divine  gracious  influence  which,  if 
not  resisted,  would  lead  on  to  conversion.  Some  of  the  doctrines  joined 
by  Calvinists  with,  the  corruption  of  our  common  nature  are,  indeed, 
very  disputable,  and  such  as  we  shall,  in  the  proper  place,  attempt  to 
prove  unscriptural ;  but  in  this  Arminians  and  they  so  well  agree,  that 
it  is  an  entire  delusion  to  represent  this  doctrine,  as  it  is  often  done,  as 
exclusively  Calvinistic.  "  The  Calvinists,"  says  Bishop  Tomline,  "  con- 
tend that  the  sin  of  Adam  introduced  into  his  nature  such  a  radical 
impotence  and  depravity,  that  it  is  impossible  for  his  descendants  to 
make  any  voluntary  effort  [of  themselves]  toward  piety  and  virtue,  or  in 
any  respect  to  coiTect  and  improve  their  moral  and  rehgious  character  ; 
and  that  faith  and  all  the  Christian  graces  are  communicated  by  the 
sole  and  irresistible  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  without  any  endea- 
vour or  concurrence  on  the  part  of  man."  {Refutation  of  Calvinism.) 
The  latter  part  only  of  this  statement  gives  the  Calvinistic  peculiarity ; 
the  former  is  not  exclusively  theirs.  We  have  seen  the  sentiment  of 
Arminius  on  the  natural  state  of  man,  and  it  perfectly  harmonizes  with 
that  of  Calvin  where  he  says,  in  his  own  forcible  manner,  "  that  man  is 
so  totally  overwhelmed,  as  with  a  deluge,  that  no  part  is  free  from  sin, 
and  therefore  whatever  proceeds  from  him  is  accounted  sin."  (Institutes.) 

But  in  bringing  all  these  opinions  to  the  test  of  Scriptural  testimony, 
we  must  first  inquire  into  the  import  of  the  penalty  of  death,  threatened 
upon  the  offences  of  the  first  man. 

The  Pelagian  and  Socinian  notion,  that  Adam  would  have  died  had 
he  not  sinned,  requires  no  other  refutation  than  the  words  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who  declares  expressly  that  death  entered  the  world  "  by  sin," 
and  so  it  inevitably  follows  that,  as  to  man  at  least,  but  for  sin  there 
would  have  been  no  death. 

The  notion  of  others,  that  the  death  threatened  extended  to  the  anni- 
hilation  of  the  soul  as  well  as  the  body,  and  was  only  arrested  by  the 
interposition  of  a  Redeemer,  assumes  a  doctrine  which  has  no  counte- 
2 


gECO^•D.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  49 

nance  at  all  in  Scripture,  namely,  that  the  penalty  of  transgressing  the 
Divine  law,  when  it  extends  to  the  soul,  is  death  in  the  sense  of  annihi- 
lation. On  the  contrary,  whenever  the  threat  of  death,  in  Scripture, 
refers  to  the  soul,  it  unquestionably  means  future  and  conscious  punish- 
ment. Beside,  the  term  "  death,"  which  conveys  the  threatening,  does 
not  properly  express  annihilation.  There  is  no  adequate  opposition 
between  life  and  annihilation.  If  there  were  such  an  opposition  between 
them,  then  life  and  non-annihilation  must  be  equivalent  terms.  But 
they  are  not ;  for  many  things  exist  which  do  not  live ;  and  thus  both 
the  sense  attached  to  the  term  death,  in  Scripture,  when  applied  to  the 
soul,  as  well  as  the  proper  sense  of  that  term  itself,  and  the  reason  of 
the  thing,  forbid  that  interpretation. 

The  death  threatened  to  Adam,  we  conclude,  therefore,  to  have 
extended  to  the  soul  of  man  as  well  as  to  his  body,  though  not  in  the 
sense  of  annihilation ;  but,  for  the  confirmation  of  this,  it  is  necessary 
to  refer  more  particularly  to  the  language  of  Scripture,  which  is  its  own 
best  interpreter,  and  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  opinion  of  those  divines 
who  include  in  the  penalty  attached  to  the  first  offence,  the  very  "  ful- 
ness of  death,"  as  it  has  been  justly  termed,  death  bodily,  sjnrituaL  and 
eternal,  is  not  to  be  puffed  away  by  sarcasm,  but  stands  firm  on  inspired 
testimony. 

Beside  death,  as  it  is  opposed  to  animal  life,  and  which  consists  in 
the  separation  of  the  rational  soul  from  the  body,  the  Scriptures  speak 
of  the  life  and  death  of  the  soul  in  a  jnoral  sense.  The  first  consists  in 
the  union  of  the  soul  to  God,  and  is  manifested  by  those  vigorous,  grate- 
ful, and  holy  affections,  which  are,  by  this  union,  produced.  The  second 
consists  in  a  separation  of  the  soul  from  communion  with  God,  and  is 
manifested  by  the  dominion  of  earthly  and  corrupt  dispositions  and 
habits,  and  an  entire  indifference  or  aversion  to  spiritual  and  heavenly 
things.  This,  too,  is  represented  as  the  state  of  all  who  are  not  quick- 
ened by  the  instrumentality  of  the  Gospel,  employed  for  this  purpose  by 
the  power  and  agency  of  its  Divine  Author.  "And  you  hath  he 
quickened  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  The  state  of  a 
regenerate  mind  is,  in  accordance  with  this  view,  represented  as  a  resur- 
rection,  and  a  passing  "from  death  unto  life  ;■'  and  both  to  Christ  and 
to  the  Holy  Spirit  is  this  work  of  quickening  the  souls  of  men  and  pre- 
serving them  in  moral  or  spiritual  life  attributed.  To  interpret,  then, 
the  death  pronounced  upon  Adam  as  including  moral  death,  seeing  that 
he,  by  his  transgression,  fell  actually  into  the  same  moral  state  as  a 
sinner  against  God,  in  which  all  those  persons  now  are  who  are  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  is  in  entire  accordance  with  tne  language  of  Scrip- 
ture. For,  if  a  state  of  sin  in  them  is  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  then  a 
state  of  sin  in  him  was  a  state  of  spiritual  death ;  and  that  both  by 
natural  consequence,  the  same  Cause  producing  the  same  effect,  and 
Vol.  II.       *  4 


50  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

also  by  the  appointment  of  God,  who  departs  from  sinful  men,  and, 
withdrawing  himself  from  all  communion  with  the  guilty,  withdraws 
thereby  the  only  source  of  moral  or  spiritual  life. 

But  the  hio-hest  sense  of  the  term  "  death,"  in  Scripture,  is  the  punish- 
ment of  the  soul  in  a  future  state,  both  by  a  loss  of  happiness  and 
separation  from  God,  and  also  by  a  positive  infliction  of  Divine  wrath. 
Now  this  is  stated,  not  as  pecuhar  to  any  dispensation  of  religion,  but  as 
common  to  all ;  as  the  penalty  of  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  God  in 
every  degree.  "  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,"  this  is  its  defi- 
nition ;  "  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  this  is  its  penalty.  Here  we  have 
no  mention  made  of  any  particular  sin,  as  rendering  the  transgressor 
liable  to  this  penalty,  nor  of  any  particular  circumstance  under  which 
sin  may  be  committed,  as  calling  forth  that  fatal  expression  of  the  Divine 
displeasure  ;  but  of  sin  itself  generally : — of  transgression  of  the  Divine 
law,  in  every  form  and  degree,  it  is  affirmed,  "  the  wages  of  sin  is 
DEATH."  This  is,  therefore,  to  be  considered  as  an  axiom  in  the  juris- 
prudence of  Heaven.  "  Sin,"  says  St.  James,  with  like  absolute  and 
unqualified  manner,  "  when  it  is  finished,  bringeth  forth  death  ;"  nor 
have  we  the  least  intimation  given  in  Scripture,  that  any  sin  whatever 
J9  exempted  from  this  penalty  ;  that  some  sins  are  punished  in  this  life 
only,  and  others  in  the  life  to  come.  The  degree  of  punishment  will 
be  varied  by  the  ofience ;  but  death  is  the  penalty  attached  to  all  sin, 
unless  it  is  averted  by  pardon,  which  itself  supposes  that  in  law  the 
penalty  has  been  incurred.  What  was  there,  then,  in  the  case  of  Adam 
to  take  him  out  of  this  rule  ?  His  act  was  a  transgression  of  the  law, 
and  therefore  sin ;  as  sin,  its  wages  was  "  death,"  which,  in  Scripture, 
we  have  seen,  means,  in  its  highest  sense,  future  punishment. 

To  this  Dr.  Taylor,  whom  most  modern  writers  who  deny  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin  have  followed,  objects  :  "  Death  was  to  be  the 
consequence  of  his  disobedience,  and  the  death  here  threatened  can  be 
opposed  only  to  that  hfe  God  gave  Adam  when  he  created  him." 

To  this  it  has  been  rephed  : — 

"  True :  but  how  are  you  assured^  that  God,  when  he  created  him, 
did  not  give  him  spiritual,  as  well  as  animal,  life  1  Now  spiritual  death 
is  opposed  to  spiritual  life.  And  this  is  more  than  the  death  of  the 
body. 

"  But  this,  you  say,  is  pure  conjecture,  without  a  solid  foundation. 
Fot  no  other  life  is  spoken  of  before.  Yes  there  is.  The  image  of  God 
is  spoken  of  before.  This  is  not  therefore  pure  conjecture;  but  is 
grounded  upon  a  solid  foundation,  upon  the  plain  word  of  God.  Al- 
lowing then  that  '  Adam  could  understand  it  of  no  other  life  than  that 
which  he  had  newly  received  ;'  yet  would  he  naturally  understand  it  of 
the  life  of  God  in  his  soul,  as  well  as  of  the  life  of  his  body.  In  this 
light  therefore  the  sense  of  the  threatening  will  stand  thus :  '  Thou  shall 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  51 

surely  die ;'  as  if  he  had  said,  I  halve  formed  thee  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  '  breathed  into  thy  nostrils  the  breath  of  lives,'  both  of  ani- 
mal  and  spiritual  life ;  and  in  both  respects  thou  art  become  a  living 
soul.  '  But  if  thou  eatest  of  the  forbidden  tree,  thou  shalt  cease  to  be  a 
living  soul.  For  I  vill  take  from  thee'  the  lives  I  have  given,  emd  thou 
shalt  die  spiritually,  temporally,  eternally."  (Wesley  on  Original  Sin.) 

The  answer  of  President  Edwards  is  more  at  large. 

"  To  this  I  would  say ;  it  is  true^  death  is  opposed  to  life,  and  must 
he  understood  according  to  the  nature  of  that  life,  to  which  it  is  opposed. 
But  does  it  therefore  follow,  that  nothing  can  be  meant  by  it  but  the  loss 
of  life?  Misery  is  opposed  to  happiness,  and  sorrow  is  in  Scripture 
often  opposed  to  joy ;  but  can  we  conclude  from  thence,  that  nothing  is 
meant  in  Scriptui'e  by  sorrow,  but  the  loss  of  joy  ?  Or  that  there  is  no 
more  in  misery,  than  the  loss  or  absence  of  happiness  ?  And  if  the 
death  threatened  to  Adam  can,  with  certainty,  be  opposed  only  to  the 
life  given  te  Adam,  when  God  created  him ;  I  think  a  state  of  perfect, 
perpetual,  and  hopeless  misery  is  properly  opposed  to  that  state  Adam 
was  in  when  God  created  him.  For  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  denied,  that 
the  life  Adam  had,  wa&  truly  a  happy  life  ;  happy  in  perfect  innocency, 
in  the  favour  of  his  Maker,  surrounded  with  the  happy  fruits  and  testi- 
monies of  his  love.  And  I  think  it  has  been  proved,  that  he  also  was 
happy  in  a  state  of  perfect  righteousness.  Nothing  is  more  manifest 
than  that  it  is  agreeable  to  a  very  common  acceptation  of  the  word  life 
in  Scripture,  that  it  be  understood  as  signifying  a  state  of  excellent  and 
happy  existence.  Now  that  which  is  most  opposite  to  that  life  and  state 
in  which  Adam  was  created,  is  a  state  of  total,  confirmed  wickedness,  and 
perfect  hopeless  misery,  under  the  Divine  displeasure  and  ciirse ;  not 
excluding  temporal  death,  or  the  destruction  of  the  body,  as  an  introduc- 
tion to  it. 

"  Beside,  that  which  is  much  more  evident  than  any  thing  Df.  T.  says 
on  this  head,  is,  that  the  death  which  was  to  come  on  Adam,  as  the 
punishment  of  his  disobedience,  was  opposed  to  that  life,  which  he  would 
have  had  as  the  reward  of  his  obedience  in  case  he  had  not  sinned.  Obe- 
dience and  disobedience  are  contraries ;  the  threatenings  and  promises 
which  are  sanctions  of  a  law,  are  set  in  direct  opposition ;  and  the  pro- 
mises, rewards,  and  threatened  punishments,  are  most  pi'operly  taken  as 
each  other's  opposites.  But  none  will  deny,  that  the  life  which  would 
have  been  Adam^s  reward,  if  he  had  persisted  in  obedience,  was  eternal 
life.  And  therefore  we  argue  justly  that  the  death'  which  stands  opposed 
to  that  life,  (Dr.  T.  himself  being  judge,)  is  manifestly  eternal  death,  a 
death  widely  different  from  the  death  we  now  die — to  use  his  own  words. 
If  Adam  for  his  persevering  obedience,  was  to  have  had  everlasting  life 
£uid  happiness,  in  perfect  holiness,  union  with  his  Maker,  and  enjoyment 
of  his  fevour,  and  this  was  the  life  which  was  to  be  confirmed  by  the 


52  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

tree  of  life ;  then,  doubtless,  the  death  threatened  in  case  of  disobedi- 
ence, which  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  this,  was  an  exposure  to  ever- 
lasting wickedness  and  misery,  in  separation  from  God,  and  in  enduring 
his  wrath.''  {Original  Sin.) 

The  next  question  is,  whether  Adam  is  to  be  considered  as  a  mere 
individual,  the  consequences  of  whose  misconduct  terminated  in  himself, 
or  no  otherwise  affected  his  posterity  than  incidentally,  as  the  miscon- 
duct of  an  ordinary  parent  may  affect  the  circumstances  of  his  children ; 
or  whether  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  public  man,  the  head  and  represent- 
ative of  the  human  race,  who,  in  consequence  of  his  fall,  have  fallen  with 
him,  and  received  direct  hurt  and  injury  in  the  very  constitution  of  their 
bodies,  and  the  moral  state  of  their  minds. 

The  testimony  of  Scripture  is  so  explicit  on  this  point,  that  all  the 
attempts  to  evade  it  have  been  in  vain.  In  Romans  v,  Adam  and  Christ 
are  contrasted  in  their  pubHc  or  federal  character,  and  the  hurt  which 
mankind  have  derived  from  the  one,  and  the  healing  they  have  received 
from  the  other,  are  also  contrasted  in  various  particulars,  which  are 
equally  represented  as  the  effects  of  the  "  offence"  of  Adam,  and  of  the 
"  obedience"  of  Christ.  Adam,  indeed,  in  verse  14,  is  called,  with  evi- 
dent  allusion  to  this  public  representative  character,  the  figure,  {rxj'jf og,) 
type,  or  model  "of  him  that  was  to  come."  The  same  apostle  also 
adopts  the  phrases,  "  the  first  Adam,"  and  "  the  second  Adam,"  which 
mode  of  speaking  can  only  be  explained  on  the  ground,  that  as  sin  and 
death  descended  from  one,  so  righteousness  and  life  flow  from  the  other  ; 
and  that  what  Christ  is  to  all  his  spiritual  seed,  that  Adam  is  to  all  his 
natural  descendants.  On  this,  indeed,  the  parallel  is  founded,  1  Cor. 
XV,  22,  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made 
alive,"  words  which  on  any  other  hypothesis  can  have  no  natural  signi- 
fication. Nor  is  there  any  weight  in  the  observation,  that  this  relation 
of  Adam  to  his  descendants  is  not  expressly  stated  in  the  history  of  the' 
fall ;  since,  if  it  were  not  indicated  in  that  account,  the  comment  of  an 
inspired  apostle  is,  doubtless,  a  sufficient  authority.  But  the  fact  is,  that 
the  threatenings  pronounced  upon  the  first  pair  have  all  respect  to  their 
posterity  as  well  as  to  themselves.  The  death  threatened  affects  all, — 
*'  In  Adam  all  die,"  "  death  entered  by  sin,"  that  is,  by  his  sin,  and  then 
"  passed  upon  all  men."  The  painful  childbearing  threatened  upon  Eve 
has  passed  on  to  her  daughters.  The  ground  w^as  cursed,  but  that 
affected  Adam's  posterity  also,  who,  to  this  hour,  are  doomed  to  eat  their 
bread  by  "  the  sweat  of  their  brow."  Even  the  first  blessing,  "  Be  fruit- 
ful, and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it,"  was  clearly 
pronounced  upon  them  as  public  persons,  and  both  bv  its  very  terms  and 
the  nature  of  the  thing,  since  they  alone  could  neither  replenish  the  earth 
nor  subject  it  to  their  use  and  dominion,  comprehended  their  posterity. 
In  all  these  cases  they  are  addressed  in  such  a  form  of  speech  as  is 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  53 

appropriated  lo  individuals  ;  but  the  circumstances  of  the  case  infalUbly 
show,  that,  in  the  whole  transaction,  they  stood  before  their  Maker  as 
public  persons,  and  as  the  legal  represenfaiives  of  their  descendants, 
though  in  so  many  words  they  are  not  invested  with  these  titles. 

The  condition  in  which  this  federal  connection  between  Adam  and 
his  descendants  placed  the  latter,  remains  to  be  exhibited.  The  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  has  been  a  point  greatly  debated.  In 
the  language  of  theologians  it  is  considered  as  mediate  or  immediate. 
Our  mortality  of  body  and  the  corruption  of  our  moral  nature,  in  virtue 
of  our  derivation  from  him,  is  what  is  meant  by  the  mediate  imputation 
of  his  sin  to  us ;  by  immediate  imputation  is  meant  that  Adam's  sin  is 
accounted  ours  in  the  sight  of  God,  by  virtue  of  our  federal  relation. 
To  support  the  latter  notion,  various  illustrative  phrases  have  been  used : 
as,  that  Adam  and  his  posterity  constitute  one  moral  person,  and  that 
the  whole  human  race  was  in  him,  its  head,  consenting  to  his  act,  &;c. 
This  is  so  little  agreeable  to  that  distinct  agency  which  enters  into  the 
very  notion  of  an  accountable  being,  that  it  cannot  be  maintained,  and  it 
destroys  the  sound  distinction  between  original  and  actual  sin.  It  as- 
serts, indeed,  the  imputation  of  the  actual  commission  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  descendants,  which  is  false  in  fact ;  makes  us  stand  chargeable  with 
the  full  latitude  of  his  transgression,  and  all  its  attendant  circumstances  ; 
and  constitutes  us,  separate  from  all  actual  voluntary  offence,  equally 
guilty  with  him,  all  which  are  repugnant  equally  to  our  consciousness 
and  to  the  equity  of  the  case. 

The  other  opinion  does  not,  however,  appear  to  go  the  length  of 
Scripture,  which  must  not  be  warped  by  the  reasonings  of  erring  man. 
There  is  another  view  of  the  imputation  of  the  offence  of  Adam  to  us 
which  is  more  consistent  with  its  testimony.  This  is  very  clearly  stated 
by  Dr.  Watts  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Taylor. 

"  When  a  man  has  broken  the  law  of  his  country,  and  is  punished  for 
so  doing,  it  is  plain  that  sin  is  imputed  to  him :  his  wickedness  is  upon 
him;  he  hears  his  iniquity :  that  is,  he  is  reputed  or  accounted  guilty: 
he  is  condemned  and  dealt  with  as  an  offender. 

"  But  if  a  man,  having  committed  treason,  his  estate  is  taken  from 
him  and  his  children,  then  they  bear  the  iniquity  of  their  father,  and  his 
sin  is  imputed  to  them  also. 

"  If  a  man  lose  his  life  and  estate  for  murder,  and  his  children  thereby 
become  vagabonds,  then  the  blood  of  the  person  murdered  is  said  to  be 
upon  the  murderer,  and  upon  his  children  also.  So  the  Jews :  His 
hlood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children  ;  let  us  and  our  children  be  punished 
for  it. 

"  But  it  may  be  asked,  how  can  the  acts  of  the  parent's  treason  be 
imputed  to  his  litde  child  ?  Since  those  acts  were  quite  out  of  the  reach 
of  an  infant,  nor  was  it  possible  for  him  to  commit  them  ? — I  answer, 


54  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  Those  acts  of  treason  or  acts  of  service,  are  by  a  common  figure 
said  to  be  imputed  to  the  cJiildren,  when  they  suffer  or  enjoy  the  conse- 
quences  of  their  father's  treason  or  eminent  service  :  though  the  parti- 
cular actions  of  treason  or  service,  could  not  be  practised  by  the  chil- 
dren. This  would  easily  be  understood  should  it  occur  in  human  history. 
And  why  not  when  it  occurs  in  the  sacred  writings  ? 

"  Sin  is  taken  either  for  an  act  of  disobedience  to  a  law,  or  for  the 
legal  result  of  such  an  act ;  that  is,  the  guilt,  or  liahleness  to  punish- 
ment. Now  when  we  say,  the  sin  of  a  traitor  is  imputed  to  his  children, 
we  do  not  mean,  that  the  act  of  the  father  is  charged  upon  the  child ; 
but  that  the  guilt  or  liahleness  to  punishment  is  so  transferred  to  him 
that  he  suffers  banishment  or  poverty  on  account  of  it. 

"  Thus  the  sin  of  Achan  was  so  imputed  to  his  children,  that  they 
were  all  stoned  on  account  of  it,  Josh,  vii,  24.  In  like  manner  the 
povetousness  of  Gehazi  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  2  Kings  v,  27 ; 
Avhen  God  by  his  prophet  pronounced,  that  the  leprosy  should  cleave 
unto  him  and  to  his  seed  for  ever. 

"  The  Scriptures  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  use  the  words 
sin  and  iniquity,  (both  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,)  to  signify  not  only  the  cri- 
minal  actions  themselves,  but  also  the  result  and  consequences  of  those 
actions,  that  is,  the  guilt  or  liahleness  to  punishment :  and  sometimes 
the  punishment  itself,  whether  it  fall  upon  the  original  criminal,  or  upon 
others  on  his  account. 

"Indeed,  when  sin  or  righteousness  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  any 
man,  on  account  of  what  himself  hath  done,  the  words  usually  denote 
both  the  good  or  evil  actions  themselves,  and  the  legal  result  of 
them.  But  when  the  sin  or  righteousness  of  one  person  is  said  to  be 
imputed  to  another,  then  generally  those  words  mean  only  the  result 
thereof;  that  is,  a  liahleness  to  punishment  on  the  one  hand,  and  to 
reward  on  the  other. 

"  But  let  us  say  what  we  will,  in  order  to  confine  the  sense  of  the 
imputation  of  sin  and  righteousness  to  the  legal  result,  the  reward  or 
punishment  of  good  or  evil  actions ;  let  us  ever  so  exphcitly  deny  the 
imputation  of  the  actions  themselves  to  others,  still  Dr.  Taylor  will  level 
almost  all  his  arguments  against  the  imputation  of  the  actions  them- 
selves, and  then  triumph  in  having  demolished  what  we  never  built,  and 
in  refuting  what  we  never  asserted." 

In  the  sense  then^above  given,  we  may  safely  contend  for  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  sin ;  and  this  agrees  precisely  with  the  Apostle  Paul, 
who  speaks  of  the  imputation  of  sin  to  those  who  "  had  not  sinned  after 
the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,"  that  is,  to  all  who  lived  between 
Adam  and  Moses,  and,  consequently,  to  infants  who  personally  had  not 
offended ;  and  also  declares,  that,  "  by  one  man's  disobedience  many 
were  made,  constituted,  accounted,  and  dealt  with  as  sinners,"  and 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  55 

treated  as  though  they  themseh^es  had  actually  sinned :  for,  that  this  is 
his  sense,  is  clear  from  what  follows,  "  so  by  tlie  obedience  of  one  shall 
many  be  made  righteous," — constituted,  accounted,  and  dealt  with  as 
such,  though  not  actually  righteous,  but,  in  fact,  pardoned  criminals. — 
The  first  consequence,  then,  of  this  imputation  is  the  death  of  the  body, 
to  which  all  the  descendants  of  Adam  are  made  liable,  and  that  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  Adam — "  through  the  offence  of  one  many  are 
dead."  But  though  this  is  the  first,  it  is  far  from  being  the  only  conse- 
quence. For,  as  throughout  the  apostle's  reasoning  in  the  fifth  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  "  the 
gift,"  "  the  free  gift,"  "  the  gift  by  grace,"  mean  one  and  the  same 
thing,  even  the  whole  benefit  given  by  the  abounding  grace  of  God, 
through  the  obedience  of  Christ ;  and  as  these  verses  are  evidently 
parallel  to  1st  Corinthians  xv,  22,  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive,"  "  it  follows  that  dying  and  being 
made  alive,  in  the  latter  passage,  do  not  refer  to  the  body  only, 
but  that  dying  implies  all  the  evils  temporal  and  spiritual  which  are 
derived  from  Adam's  sin,  and  heing  made  alive,  all  the  blessings  which 
are  derived  from  Christ  in  time  and  in  eternity."  [Wesley  on  Origi, 
nal  Sin.) 

The  second  consequence  is,  therefore,  death  spiritual,  that  moral 
state  which  arises  from  the  withdrawment  of  that  intercourse  of  God 
with  the  human  soul,  in  consequence  of  its  becoming  polluted,  and  of 
that  influence  upon  it  which  is  the  only  source  and  spring  of  the  right 
and  vigorous  direction  and  employment  of  its  powers  in  which  its  recti- 
tude consists ;  a  deprivation,  from  which  a  depravation  consequently  and 
necessarily  follows.  This,  we  have  before  seen,  was  included  in  the 
original  threatening,  and  if  Adam  was  a  public  person,  a  representa- 
live,  it  has  passed  on  to  his  descendants,  who,  in  their  natural  state, 
are  therefore  said  to  be  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  Thus  it  is  that 
the  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked ;  and 
that  all  evils  naturally  "  proceed  from  it,"  as  corrupt  streams  from  a 
corrupt  fountain. 

The  third  consequence  is  eternal  death,  separation  from  God,  and 
endless  banishment  from  his  glory  in  a  future  state.  This  follows 
from  both  the  above  premises, — from  the  federal  character  of  Adam  ; 
and  from  the  eternal  life  given  by  Christ  being  opposed  by  the  apostle 
to  the  death  derived  from  Adam.  The  justice  of  this  is  objected  to, 
a  point  which  will  be  immediately  considered  ;  but  it  is  now  sufficient  to 
say,  that  if  the  making  the  descendants  of  Adam  liable  to  eternal  death, 
because  of  his  offence,  be  unjust,  the  infliction  of  temporal  death  is  so 
also ;  the  duration  of  the  punishment  making  no  difference  in  the  simple 
question  of  justice.  If  punishment,  whether  of  loss  or  o^  pain,  be  unjust, 
its  measure  and  duration  may  be  a  srreater  or  a  less  injustice ;  but  it  is 

2 


56  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

unjust  in  every  degree.  If,  then,  we  only  confine  the  hurt  we  have 
received  from  Adam  to  bodily  death ;  if  this  legal  result  of  his  trans- 
gression only  be  imputed  to  us,  and  we  are  so  constituted  sinners  as  to 
become  liable  to  it,  we  are  in  precisely  the  same  difficulty,  as  to  the 
equity  of  the  proceeding,  as  when  that  legal  result  is  extended  farther. 
The  only  way  out  of  this  dilemma  is  that  adopted  by  Dr.  Taylor,  to  con- 
sider  death  not  as  a  punishment,  but  as  a  blessing,  which  involves  the 
absurdity  of  making  Deity  threaten  a  benefit  as  a  penalty  for  an  offence, 
which  sufficiently  refutes  the  notion. 

The  objections  which  have  been  raised  against  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  offence,  in  the  extent  we  have  stated  it,  on  the  ground  of  the 
justice  of  the  proceeding,  are  of  two  kinds.     The  former  are  levelled 
not  against  that  Scriptural  view  of  the  case  which  has  just  been  exhi- 
bited,  but  against  that  repulsive  and  shocking  perversion  of  it  which  is 
found  in  the  high  Calvinistic  creed,  which  consigns  infants,  not  elect,  to 
a  conscious  and  endless  punishment,  and  that  not  of  loss  only,  but  of 
pain,  for  this  first  offence  of  another.     The  latter  springs  from  regard- 
ing  the  legal  part  of  the  whole  transaction  which  affected  our  first 
parents  and  their  posterity,  separately  from  the  evangelical  provision  of 
mercy  which  v/as  concurrent  with  it,  and  which  included,  in  like  man- 
ner, both  them  and  their  whole  race.     With  the  high  Calvinistic  view 
we  have  now  nothing  to  do.     It  will  stand  or  fall  with  the  doctrines  of 
election  and  reprobation,  as  held  by  that  school,   and  these  will  be 
examined  in  their  place.     The  latter  class  of  objections  now  claim  our 
attention ;   and  as  to  them  we   observe,  that,   as  the  question  relates 
to  the  moral  government  of  God,  if  one  part  of  the  transaction  before 
us  is  intimately  and  inseparably  connected  with  another  and  collateral 
procedure,  it  cannot  certainly  be  viewed  in  its  true  light  but  in  that 
connection.     The  redemption  of  man  by  Christ  was  not  certainly  an 
afler  thought  brought  in  upon  man's  apostasy;  it  was  a  provision,  and 
when  man  fell,  he  found  justice  hand  in  hand  with  mercy.     What  are, 
then,  the  facts  of  the  whole  case  ?     For  greater  clearness,  let  us  take 
Adam  and  the  case  of  his  adult  descendants  first.     All  become  liable  to 
bodily  death ;  here  was  justice,  the  end  of  which  is  to  support  law, 
as  that  supports  government.      By  means  of  the  anticipated  sacrifice 
of  the  Redeemer's  atonement,  which,  as  we  shall  in  its  place  show,  is 
an  effectual  means  of  declaring  the  justice  of  God,  the  sentence  is 
reversed,  not  by  exemption  from  bodily  death,  but  by  a  happy  and 
glorious  resurrection.     For,  as  this  was  an  act  of  grace,  almighty  God 
was  free  to  choose,  speaking  humanly,  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  should  be  administered,  in  ordering  which  the  unerring  wisdom  of 
God  had  its  natural  influence.     The  evil  of  sin  was  still  to  be  kept 
visible  before  the  universe,  for  its  admonition,  by  the  actual  infliction 
of  death  upon  all  men ;  the  grace  was  to  be  manifested  in  reparation  of 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  57 

the  loss  by  restoration  to  immortality.  Again,  God,  the  fountain  of 
spiritual  life,  forsook  the  soul  of  Adam,  now  polluted  by  sin,  and  unfit 
for  his  residence.  He  became  morally  dead  and  corrupt,  and,  as  "  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  this  is  the  natural  state  of  his  descend- 
ants. Here  was  justice,  a  display  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  of  the  penalty 
which  it  ever  immediately  induces — man  forsaken  by  God,  and  thus 
forsaken,  a  picture  to  the  whole  universe  of  corruption  and  misery, 
resulting  from  that  departure  from  him  which  is  implied  in  one  sinful 
act.  But  that  spiritual,  quickening  influence  visits  him  from  another 
quarter  and  through  other  means.  The  second  Adam  "  is  a  quickening 
spirit."  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  purchase  of  his  redemption,  to  be  given 
to  man,  that  he  may  again  infuse  into  his  corrupted  nature  the  heavenly 
life,  and  sanctify  and  regenerate  it.  Here  is  the  mercy.  As  to  a 
future  state,  eternal  life  is  promised  to  all  men  believing  in  Christ, 
which  reverses  the  sentence  of  eternal  death.  Here  again  is  the 
manifestation  of  mercy.  Should  this  be  rejected,  he  stands  liable  to 
the  whole  penalty,  to  the  punishment  of  loss  as  the  natural  consequence 
of  his  corrupted  nature  which  renders  him  unfit  for  heaven :  to  the 
punishment  of  even  pain  for  the  original  offence,  we  may  also,  without 
injustice,  say,  as  to  an  adult,  whose  actual  transgressions,  when  the 
means  of  deliverance  have  been  afforded  him  by  Christ,  is  a  consenting 
to  all  rebellion  against  God,  and  to  that  of  Adam  himself:  and  to  the 
penalty  of  his  own  actual  transgressions,  aggravated  by  his  having  made 
light  of  the  Gospel.  Here  is  the  collateral  display  of  justice.  In  all 
this,  it  is  impossible  to  impeach  the  equity  of  the  Divine  procedure, 
since  no  man  suffers  any  loss  or  injury  ultimately  by  the  sin  of 
Adam,  but  by  his  own  wilful  obstinacy — the  "  abounding  of  grace,"  by 
Christ,  having  placed  before  all  men,  upon  their  believing,  not  merely 
compensation  for  the  loss  and  injury  sustained  by  Adam,  but  infi- 
nitely higher  blessings,  both  in  kind  or  degree,  than  were  forfeited  in 
him.  As  to  adults,  then,  the  objection  taken  from  Divine  justice  is 
unsupported. 

We  now  come  to  the  case  of  persons  dying  in  infancy.  The  great 
consideration  which  leads  to  a  solution  of  this  case  is  found  in  Romans 
V,  18,  "  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  In  these  words,  the  sin  of 
Adam  and  the  merits  of  Christ  are  pronounced  to  be  co-extensive ;  the 
words  applied  to  both  are  precisely  the  same,  ^^  judgment  came  upon 
ALL  MEN,"  "  the  FREE  GIFT  Came  upou  ALL  MEN."  If  the  wholc  human 
race  be  meant  in  the  former  clause,  the  whole  human  race  is  meant  in 
the  latter  also  ;  and  it  follows  that  as  all  are  injured  by  the  offence  of 
Adam,  so  all  are  benefited  by  the  obedience  of  Christ.  Whatever, 
therefore  that  benefit  may  be,  all  children  dying  in  infancy  must  partake 

2 


58  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  it,  or  there  would  be  a  large  portion  of  the  human  race  upon  whom 
the  "  free  gift,"  the  effects  of  "  the  righteousness  of  one,"  did  not 
"  come,"  which  is  contrary  to  the  apostle's  words. 

This  benefit,  whatever  it  might  be,  did  not  so  «  come  upon  all  men" 
as  to  relieve  them  immediately  from  the  sentence  of  death.  This  is 
obvious,  from  men  being  still  liable  to  die,  and  from  the  existence  of  a 
corrupt  nature  or  spiritual  death  in  all  mankind.  As  this  is  the  case 
with  adults,  who  grow  up  from  a  state  of  childhood,  and  who  can  both 
trace  the  corruptness  of  their  nature  to  their  earliest  years,  and  were 
always  liable  to  bodily  death  ;  so,  for  this  reason,  it  did  not  come 
immediately  upon  children,  whether  they  die  in  infancy  or  not.^ — 
For  there  is  no  more  reason  to  conclude  that  those  children  who  die  in 
infancy  were  born  with  a  pure  nature,  than  they  who  live  to  man- 
hood ;  and  the  fact  of  their  being  born  liable  to  death,  a  part  of  the 
penalty,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  they  were  born  under  the  whole 
malediction. 

The  "  free  gift,"  however,  which  has  come  upon  all  men,  by  the 
righteousness  of  one,  is  said  to  be  "  unto  justification  of  fife,"  the  full 
reversal  of  the  penalty  of  death  ;  and,  by  "  the  abundance  of  grace,  and 
of  the  gift  of  righteousness,"  the  benefit  extends  to  the  "  reigning  in  life 
by  one,  Jesus  Christ."  If  the  "  free  gift"  is  so  given  to  all  men  that 
this  is  the  end  for  which  it  is  given,  then  is  this  "justification  of  life," 
and  this  "  reigning  in  life  by  Jesus  Christ,"  as  truly  within  the  reach 
of  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  as  within  the  reach  of  adults  living  to  years 
of  choice.  This  "  free  gift"  is  bestowed  upon  "  all  men,"  sjj,  in  order 
to  justification  of  life  ;  it  follows,  then,  that,  in  the  case  of  infants, 
this  gift  may  be  connected  with  the  end  for  which  it  was  given,  as  well 
as  in  the  case  of  adults,  or  it  would  be  given  in  vain,  and  in  fact,  be,  in 
no  sense  whatever,  a  gift  or  benefit,  standing  opposed,  in  its  result,  to 
condemnation  and  death. 

Now  we  know  clearly  by  what  means  the  "  free  gift,"  which  is  be- 
stowed in  order  to  justification  of  life,  (that  is,  that  act  of  God  by  which 
a  sinner,  under  sentence  of  death,  is  adjudged  to  life,)  is  connected  with 
that  end  in  the  case  of  adults.  The  gift  "  comes  upon  them,"  in  its 
effects,  very  largely,  independent  of  any  thing  they  do — in  the  long 
suffering  of  God ;  in  the  instructions  of  the  Gospel ;  the  warnings  of 
ministers ;  the  corrective  dispensations  of  Providence ;  above  all,  in 
preventing  grace  and  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  removing  so 
much  of  their  spiritual  death  as  to  excite  in  them  various  degrees  of 
religious  feeling,  and  enabling  them  to  seek  the  face  of  God,  to 
turn  at  his  rebuke,  and,  by  improving  that  grace,  to  repent  and 
beheve  the  Gospel.  In  a  word,  "justification  of  life"  is  offered 
them ;  nay,  more,  it  is  pressed  upon  them,  and  they  fail  of  it  only  by 
rejecting  it.  If  they  yield  and  embrace  the  offer,  then  the  end  for 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  59 

which   "  the    free   gift   came"  upon  them   is   attained — "  justification 
ofhfe." 

As  to  infants,  they  are  not,  indeed,  born  justified  and  regenerate ;  so 
that  to  say  that  original  sin  is  taken  away,  as  to  infants,  by  Christ,  is 
not  the  correct  view  of  the  case,  for  the  reasons  before  given  ;  but  they 
are  all  born  under  the  "  free  gift,"  the  effects  of  the  "  righteousness"  of 
one,  which  extended  to  "  all  men  ;"  and  this  free  gift  is  bestowed  on 
them  in  order  to  justification  of  life,  the  adjudging  of  the  condemned  to 
live.     All  the  mystery,  therefore,  in  the  case  arises  from  this,  that  in 
adults  we  see  the  free  gift  connected  with  its  end,  actual  justification,  by 
acts  of  their  own,  repentance  and  faith ;  but  as  to  infants,  we  are  not 
informed  by  what  process  justification,  with  its  attendant  blessings,  is 
actually  bestowed,  though  the  words  of  the  apostle  are  express,  that 
through  "  the  righteousness  of  one"  they  are  entitled  to  it.     Nor  is  it 
surprising  that  this  process  should  be  hidden  from  us,  since  the  Gospel 
was  written  for  adults,  though  the  benefit  of  it  is  designed  for  all ;  and 
the  knowledge  of  this  work  of  God,  hi  the  spirit  of  an  infant,  must  pre- 
suppose an  acquaintance  with  the  properties  of  the  human  soul,  which 
is,  in  fact,  out  of  our  reach.     If,  however,  an  infant  is  not  capable  of  a 
voluntary  acceptance  of  the  benefit  of  the  "  free  gift ;"  neither,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  it  capable  of  a  voluntary  rejection  of  it ;  and  it  is  by 
rejecting  it  that  adults  perish.     If  much  of  the  benefit  of  this  "  free 
gift"  comes  upon  us  as  adults,  independent  of  our  seeking  it ;  and  if, 
indeed,  the  very  power  and  inclination  to  seek  justification  of  Hfe  is  thus 
prevenient,  and  in  the  highest  sense  free ;  it  follows,  by  the  same  rule 
of  the  Divine  conduct,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  given  to  children ; 
that  a  Divine  and  an  effectual  influence  may  be  exerted  on  them,  which, 
meeting  with  no  voluntary  resistance,  shall  cure  the  spiritual  death  and 
corrupt  tendency  of  their  nature ;  and  all  this  without  supposing  any 
great  difference  in  the  principle  of  the  administration  of  this  grace  in 
their  case  and  that  of  adults.     But  the  different  circumstances  of  chil- 
dren dying  in  their  infancy,  and  adults,  proves  also  that  a  different  ad- 
ministration of  the  same  grace,  which  is  freely  bestowed  upon  all,  must 
take  place.     Adults  are  personal  oflTenders,  infants  are  not ;    for  the 
former,  confession  of  sin,  repentance,  and  the  trust  of  persons  con- 
sciously perishing  for  their  transgressions,  are  appropriate  to  their  cir- 
cumstances, but  not  to  those  of  the  latter ;  and  the  very  wisdom  of  God 
may  assure  us  that,  in  prescribing  the  terms  of  salvation,  that  is,  the 
means  by  which  the  "  free  gift"  shall  pass  to  its  issue,  justification  of 
life,  the  circumstances  of  the  persons  must  be  taken  into  account.    The 
reason  of  pardon,  in  every  case,  is  not  repentance,  not  faith,  not  any 
thing  done  by  man,  but  the  merit  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.     Repent- 
ance and  faith  are,  it  is  true,  in  the  case  of  adults,  a  sine  qua  non,  but 
in  no  sense  the  meritorious  cause.     The  reasons  of  their  being  attached 


60  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  the  promise,  as  conditions,  are  nowhere  given,  but  they  are  nowhere 
enforced  as  such,  except  on  adults.  If,  in  adults,  we  see  the  meritorious 
cause  workino-  in  conjunction  with  instrumental  causes,  they  are  capable 
of  what  is  required ;  but  when  we  see,  even  in  adults,  that,  independent 
of  their  own  acts,  the  meritorious  cause  is  not  inert,  but  fruitful  in  vital 
influence  and  gracious  deaUng,  we  see  such  a  separation  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  grand  meritorious  cause,  and  the  subordinate  instrumental 
causes,  as  to  prove  that  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ  are  not,  in 
every  degree,  and  consequently,  on  the  same  principle,  not  in  every 
case,  conferred  under  the  restraints  of  conditions.  So  certainly  is  infant 
salvation  attested  by  the  Scriptures ;  so  explicitly  are  we  told  that  the 
free  gift  is  come  upon  all  men  to  justification  of  life,  and  that  none  can 
come  short  of  this  blessing  but  those  who  reject  it. 

But  there  is  another  class  of  instrumental  causes  to  be  taken  into  the 
account  in  the  case  of  children ;  though  they  arise  not  out  of  their  per- 
sonal acts.  The  first  and  greatest,  and  general  one,  is  the  intercession 
of  Christ  himself,  which  can  never  be  fruitless ;  and  that  children  are 
the  objects  of  his  intercession  is  certain,  both  from  his  office  as  the  inter- 
cessor of  all  mankind,  the  "  mediator  between  God  and  Twaw,"  that  is, 
all  men ;  and  from  his  actually  praying  for  children  in  the  days  of  his 
abode  on  earth.  "  He  took  them  up  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them ;" 
which  benediction  was  either  in  the  form  of  prayer,  or  it  was  authorita- 
tive, which  makes  the  case  still  stronger.  As  to  their  future  state,  he 
seems  also  to  open  a  sufficiently  encouraging  view,  when  he  declares 
that  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;"  for,  whether  we  understand 
this  of  future  felicity,  or  of  the  Church,  the  case  is  settled ;  in  neither 
case  can  they  be  under  wrath,  and  liable  to  condemnation. 

Other  instrumental  causes  of  the  communication  of  this  benefit  to 
infants,  wherever  the  ordinances  of  the  Christian  Church  are  established, 
and  used  in  faith,  ai*e  the  prayers  of  parents,  and  baptism  in  the  name 
of  Christ ;  means  which  cannot  be  without  their  effect,  both  as  to  infants 
who  die,  and  those  who  live ;  and  which,  as  God's  own  ordinances,  he 
cannot  but  honour,  in  different  degrees,  it  may  be,  as  to  those  who  live 
and  those  whom  he  intends  to  call  to  himself;  but  which  are  still  means 
of  grace,  and  channels  of  saving  influence;  or  they  are  dead  forms,  ill 
becoming  that  which  is  so  eminently  a  dispensation,  not  of  the  letter,  but 
of  the  spirit. 

The  injustice,  then,  alleged  as  implicated  in  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  when  considered  in  this  its  whole  and  Scriptural  view,  entirely 
vanishes ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  evil  of  sin  is  manifested,  and  the 
justice  also  of  the  Lawgiver,  for  mercy  comes  not  by  relaxing  the  hold 
of  justice.  That  still  has  its  full  manifestation  in  the  exaction  of  vicari- 
ous obedience  to  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross,  from  the  second 

Adam,  who  made  himself  the  federal  head  of  fallen  men,  and  gave 
o 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  61 

"justification  unto  life"  only  by  his  submission  to  "judgment  unto  con- 
demnation." 

Having  thus  established  the  import  of  the  dea^h  threatened  as  the 
penalty  of  Adam's  transgression,  to  include  corporal,  moral,  or  spiritual 
and  eternal  death  ;  and  showed  that  the  sentence  included  also  the 
whole  of  his  posterity,  our  next  step  is  to  ascertain  that  moral  condition 
in  which  men  are  actually  born  into  the  world,  notwithstanding  that 
gracious  provision  which  is  made  in  Christ  for  human  redemption.  On 
this  the  testimony  of  Scripture  is  so  explicit  and  ample,  and  its  humbhng 
representations  are  so  borne  out  by  consciousness  and  by  experience, 
that  it  may  well  be  matter  of  surprise,  that  the  natural  innocence  of  hu. 
man  nature  should  ever  have  had  its  advocates,  at  least  among  those 
who  profess  to  receive  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God.  In  entering  upon 
the  subject  of  this  corruption  of  human  nature,  it  must  first  be  stated, 
that  there  are  several  facts  of  history  and  experience  to  be  accounted 
for ;  and  that  they  must  all  be  taken  into  account  in  the  diflferent  theo- 
ries which  are  advocated. 

1.  That  in  all  ages  great^  and  even  general  wickedness  has  prevailed 
among  those  large  masses  of  men  which  are  called  nations. 

So  far  as  it  relates  to  the  immediate  descendants  of  Adam  before  the 
flood  ;  to  all  the  nations  of  the  highest  antiquity  ;  to  the  Jews  through- 
out every  period  of  their  history,  down  to  their  final  dispersion ;  and  to 
the  empires  and  other  states  whose  history  is  involved  in  theirs  ;  we  have 
the  historical  evidence  of  Scripture,  and  much  collateral  evidence  also 
from  their  own  historians. 

To  what  does  this  evidence  go,  but  to  say  the  least,  the  actual  de- 
pravity of  the  majority  of  mankind  in  all  these  ages  and  among  all  these 
nations  ?  As  to  the  race  before  the  flood,  a  murderer  sprang  up  in  the 
first  family,  and  the  world  became  increasingly  corrupt,  until  "  God 
saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great,  and  that  every  imagination 
of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually ;"  "  that  all 
flesh  had  corrupted  their  way  upon  earth ;"  and  that  "  the  earth 
was  filled  with  violence  through  them."  Only  Noah  was  found  right- 
eous before  God ;  and  because  of  the  universal  wickedness,  a  wicked- 
ness which  spurned  all  warning,  and  resisted  all  correction,  the  flood 
was  brought  upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly,  as  a  testimony  of  Divine 
anger. 

The  same  course  of  increasing  wickedness  is  exhibited  in  the  sacred 
i^ecords  as  taking  place  after  the  flood.  The  building  of  the  tower  of 
Babel  was  a  wicked  act,  done  by  general  concert,  before  the  division  of 
nations  ;  this  we  know  from  its  having  excited  the  Divine  displeasure, 
though  we  know  not  in  what  the  particular  crime  consisted.  After  the 
division  of  nations,  the  history  of  the  times  of  Abraham,  Lot,  Jacob, 
Joseph,  and  Moses  sufliciently  show  that  idolatry,  injustice,  oppression. 


62  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  gross  sensualities  characterized  the  people  of  Canaan,  Egypt,  and 
every  other  country  mentioned  in  the  Mosaic  narrative. 

The  obstinate  inchnation  of  the  Israehtes  to  idolatry,  through  all  ages 
to  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  the  general  prevalence  of  vice  among 
men,  is  acknowledged  in  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  Their  moral 
wickedness,  after  their  return  from  Babylon,  when  they  no  longer  prac- 
tised  idolatry,  and  were,  therefore,  dehvered  from  that  most  fruitful 
source  of  crime,  may  be  collected  from  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament 
who  lived  after  that  event ;  and  their  general  corruption  in  the  time  of 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles  stands  forth  with  disgusting  prominence  in 
their  writings  and  in  the  writings  of  Josephus,  their  own  historian. 

As  to  all  other  ancient  nations,  of  whom  we  have  any  history,  the 
accounts  agree  in  stating  the  general  prevalence  of  practical  immo- 
rality and  of  malignant  and  destructive  passions ;  and,  if  we  had  no  such 
acknowledgments  from  themselves  ;  if  no  such  reproaches  were  mutu- 
ally east  upon  each  other ;  if  history  were  not,  as  indeed  it  is,  a  record 
of  crimes,  in  action  and  in  detail ;  and  if  poets,  moralists,  and  satirists 
did  not  all  give  their  evidence,  by  assuYning  that  men  Were  influenced 
by  general  principles  of  vice,  expressing  themselves  in  particular  modes 
in  different  ages,  the  following  great  facts  would  prove  the  case  : — 

The  fact  of  general  religious  error,  and  that  in  the  very  funda- 
mental principles  of  religion,  such  as  the  existence  of  one  only  God ; 
which  universal  corruption  of  doctrine  among  all  the  ancient  nations 
mentioned  above,  shows  both  indifference  to  truth  and  hostility  against  it, 
and  therefore  proves,  at  least,  the  general  corruption  of  men's  hearts,  of 
which  even  indifference  to  religious  truth  is  a  sufficient  indication. 

The  universal  prevalence  of  idolatry,  which  not  only  argues  great 
debasement  of  intellect,  but  deep  wickedness  of  heart,  because,  in  all 
ages,  idolatry  has  been  more  or  less  immoral  in  its  influence,  and 
generally  grossly  so,  by  leading  directly  to  sanguinary  and  impure 
practices. 

The  prevalence  of  superstition  wherever  idolatry  has  prevailed, 
and  often  when  that  has  not  existed,  is  another  proof.  The  essence  of 
this  evil  is  the  transfer  of  fear  and  hope  from  God  to  real  or  imaginary 
creatures  and  things,  and  so  is  a  renunciation  of  allegiance  to  God,  as 
the  Governor  of  the  world,  and  a  practical  denial  either  of  his  being  or 
his  providence. 

Aggressive  wars,  in  the  guilt  of  which  all  nations  and  all  uncivilised 
tribes  have  been,  in  all  ages,  involved,  and  which  necessarily  suppose 
hatred,  revenge,  cruelty,  injustice,  and  ambition. 

The  accounts  formerly  given  of  the  innocence  and  harmlessnesS  of 
the  Hindoos,  Chinese,  the  inhabitants  of  the  South  Sea  Islands,  and 
other  parts  of  the  world,  are  now  found  to  be  total  mistaiies  or  wilful 
falsehoods. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  63 

In  all  heathen  nations,  idolatry,  superstition,  fraud,  oppression,  and 
vices  of  almost  every  description,  show  the  general  state  of  society  to 
be  exceedingly  and  even  destructively  corrupt;  and  though  Moham- 
medan nations  escape  the  charge  of  idolatry,  yet  pride,  avarice,  oppres- 
sion, injustice,  cruelty,  sensuality,  and  gross  superstition,  are  all  preva- 
lent among  them. 

The  case  of  Christian  nations,  though  in  them  immorality  is  more 
powerfully  checked  than  in  any  other,  and  many  bright  and  influential 
examples  of  the"  highest  virtue  are  found  among  their  inhabitants,  suffi- 
ciently proves  that  the  majority  are  corrupt  and  vicious  in  their  habits. 
The  impiety  and  profaneness ;  the  neglect  of  the  fear  and  worship  of 
God ;  the  fraud  and  villany  continually  taking  place  in  the  commerce 
of  mankind  ;  the  intemperance  of  various  kinds  which  is  found  among 
all  classes ;  the  oppression  of  the  poor ;  and  many  other  evils,  are  in 
proof  of  this;  and,  indeed,  we  may  confidently  conclude,  that  no  advo- 
cate of  the  natural  innocence  of  man  will  contend  that  the  majority  of 
men,  even  in  this  country^,  are  actually  virtuous  in  their  external  con- 
duct, and  much  less  that  the  fear  and  love  of  God,  and  habitual  respect 
to  his  will,  which  are,  indeed,  the  only  principles  which  can  be  deemed 
to  constitute  a  person  righteous,  influence  the  people  at  large,  or  even 
any  very  large  proportion  of  them. 

The  fact,  then,  is  established,  which  was  before  laid  down,  that  men 
in  all  ages  and  in  all  places  have,  at  least,  been  generally  wicked. 

2.  The  second  fact  to  be  accounted  for  is,  the  strength  of  that  ten- 
dency to  the  wickedness  which  we  have  seen  to  be  general. 

The  strength  of  the  corrupting  principle,  whatever  it  may  be,  is 
marked  by  two  circumstances. 

The  first  is,  the  greatness  of  the  crimes  to  which  men  have  abandoned 
themselves. 

If  the  effects  of  the  cornipt  principle  had  only  been  manifested  in 
trifling  errors,  and  practical  infirmities,  a  softer  view  of  the  moral  con- 
dition in  which  man  is  born  into  the  world  might,  probably,  have  been 
admitted ;  but  in  the  catalogue  of  human  crimes,  in  all  ages,  and  among 
great  numbers  of  all  nations,  but  more  especially  among  those  nations 
where  there  has  been  the  least  control  of  religion,  and,  therefore,  where 
the  natural  dispositions  of  men  have  exhibited  themselves  under  the 
simplest  and  most  convincing  evidence,  we  find  frauds,  oppressions, 
faithlessness,  barbarous  cruelties  and  murders,  unfeeling  oppressions, 
falsehoods,  every  kind  of  uncleanness,  uncontrolled  anger,  deadly  hatred 
and  revenge,  as  to  their  fellow  creatures,  and  proud  and  scornful  rebel- 
lion against  God. 

The  second  is,  the  number  and  influence  of  the  checks  and  restraints 
against  which  this  tide  of  wickedness  has  urged  on  its  almost  resistless 
and  universal  course. 

2 


64  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

It  has  opposed  itself  against  the  law  of  God,  in  some  degree  found 
among  all  men ;  consequently,  against  the  checks  and  remorse  of  con- 
science ;  against  a  settled  conviction  of  the  evil  of  most  of  the  actions 
indulged  in,  which  is  shown  by  their  having  been  blamed  in  others  (at 
least  whenever  any  haVe  suffered  by  them)  by  those  who  themselves 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  committing  them. 

Against  the  restraints  of  human  laws,  and  the  authority  of  magis- 
trates ;  for,  in  all  ancient  states,  the  moral  corruption  continued  to 
spread  until  they  were  politically  dissolved,  society  not  being  able  to 
hold  itself  together,  in  consequence  of  the  excessive  height  to  which 
long  indulgence  had  raised  passion  and  appetite. 

Against  the  provision  made  to  check  human  vices  by  that  judicial  act 
of  the  Governor  of  the  world,  by  which  he  shortened  the  hfe  of  man,  and 
rendered  it  uncertain,  and,  at  the  longest,  brief. 

Against  another  provision  made  by  the  Governor  of  the  world,  in 
part  with  the  same  view,  i.  e.  the  dooming  of  man  to  earn  his  suste- 
nance by  labour,  and  thus  providing  for  the  occupation  of  the  greater 
portion  of  time  in  what  was  innocent,  and  rendering  the  means  of 
sensual  indulgences  more  scanty,  and  the  opportunities  of  actual  immo- 
raUty  more  limited. 

Against  the  restraints  put  upon  vice,  by  rendering  it,  by  the  constitu- 
tion  and  the  very  nature  of  things,  the  source  of  misery  of  all  kinds  and 
degrees,  national,  domestic,  personal,  mental,  and  bodily. 

Against  the  terrible  judgments  which  God  has,  in  all  ages,  brought 
upon  wicked  nations  and  notorious  individuals,  many  of  which  visitations 
were  known  and  acknowledged  to  be  the  signal  manifestations  of  his  dis- 
pleasure against  their  vices. 

Against  those  counteractive  and  refoiTning  influences  of  the  revela- 
tions of  the  will  and  mercy  of  God,  which  at  different  times  have  been 
vouchsafed  to  the  world :  as,  against  the  light  and  influence  of  the 
patriarchal  religion  before  the  giving  of  the  law ;  against  the  Mosaic 
institute,  and  the  warnings  of  prophets  among  the  Jews ;  against  the 
religious  knowledge  which  was  transmitted  from  them  among  heathen 
nations  connected  with  their  history,  at  different  periods ;  against 
the  influence  of  Christianity  when  introduced  into  the  Roman  empire, 
and  when  transmitted  to  the  Gothic  nations,  by  all  of  whom  it  was 
grossly  corrupted ;  and  against  the  control  of  the  same  Divine  religion 
in  our  own  country,  where  it  is  exhibited  in  its  purity,  and  in  which  the 
most  active  endeavours  are  adopted  to  enlighten  and  correct  society. 

It  is  impossible  to  consider  the  number  and  power  of  these  checks 
without  acknowledging,  that  those  principles  in  human  nature  which 
give  rise  to  the  mass  of  moral  evil  which  actually  exists,  and  has  always 
existed  since  men  began  to  multiply  upon  the  earth,  are  most  powerful 
and  formidable  in  their  tendency. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  65 

3.  The  third  fact  is,  that  the  seeds  of  the  vices  whicli  exist  in  society 
may  be  discovered  in  children  in  their  earhest  years ;  selfishness,  envy, 
pride,  resentment,  deceit,  lying,  and  often  cruelty ;  and  so  much  is  this 
the  case,  so  explicitly  is  this  acknowledged  by  all,  that  it  is  the  principal 
object  of  the  moral  branch  of  education  to  restrain  and  correct  those 
evils,  both  by  coercion,  and  by  diUgently  impressing  upon  children,  as 
their  faculties  open,  the  evil  and  mischief  of  all  such  affections  and 
tendencies. 

4.  The  fourth  fact  is,  that  every  man  is  conscious  of  a  natural  tend- 
ency to  many  evils. 

These  tendencies  are  different  in  degree  and  in  kind.  (1)  In  some 
they  move  to  ambition,  and  pride,  and  excessive  love  of  honour ;  in 
others,  to  anger,  revenge,  and  implacableness ;  in  others,  to  cowardice, 
meanness,  and  fear ;  in  others,  to  avarice,  care,  and  distrust ;  in  others, 
to  sensuality  and  prodigality.  But  where  is  the  man  who  has  not  his 
peculiar  constitutional  tendency  to  some  e\il  in  one  of  these  classes  ? 
But  there  are,  also,  evil  tendencies  common  to  all.  These  are,  to  love 
creatures  more  than  God ;  to  forget  God ;  to  be  indifferent  to  our  obU- 
gations  to  him  ;  to  regard  the  opinions  of  men  more  than  the  approba- 
tion of  God  ;  to  be  more  influenced  by  the  visible  things  which  surround 
us  than  by  the  invisible  God,  whose  eye  is  ever  upon  us,  and  by  that 
invisible  state  to  which  we  are  all  hastening. 

It  is  the  constant  practice  of  those  who  advocate  the  natural  inno- 
cence of  man,  to  lower  the  standard  of  the  Divine  law  under  which 
man  is  placed ;  and  to  this  they  are  necessarily  driven,  in  order  to  give 
some  plausibility  to  their  opinions.  They  must  palliate  the  conduct  of 
men  ;  and  this  can  only  be  done  by  turning  moral  evils  into  natural  ones, 
or  into  innocent  infirmities,  and  by  so  stating  the  requisitions  made  upon 
our  obedience  by  our  Maker,  as  to  make  them  consistent  with  many 
irregularities.  But  we  have  already  shown,  that  the  love  of  God 
requires  our  supreme  love  and  our  entire  obedience  ;  and  it  will,  there- 
fore, follow,  that  whatever  is  contrary  to  love  and  to  entire  subjection, 
whether  in  principle,  in  thought,  in  word,  and  in  action,  is  sinful ;  and 
if  so,  then  the  tendency  to  evil,  in  every  man,  must,  and  on  these  pre- 
mises will,  be  allowed.  Nor  will  it  serve  any  purpose  to  say,  that 
man's  weakness  and  infirmity  is  such  that  he  cannot  yield  this  perfect 
obedience ;  for  means  of  sanctification  and  supernatural  aid  are  pro- 
vided for  him  in  the  Gospel ;  and  what  is  it  that  renders  him  indifferent 
to  them  but  the  cormptness  of  his  heart  ? 

Beside,  this  very  plea  allows  all  we  contend  for.  It  allows  that 
the  law  is  lowered,  because  of  human  inability  to  observe  it  and  to 

(1)  "Omnia  in   omnibus  vitri   sunt;   sed  non   omnia   in   singulis    extant." 
(Seneca.) 
Vol.  II.  5 


()(^  THEOLOGICAL    IXSTITUTES.  [PART 

resist  temptation ;  but  this  itself  proves,  (were  wo  even  to  admit  the 
fiction  of  this  lowering  of  the  requisitions  of  the  law.)  that  man  is  not 
now  in  the  state  in  which  he  was  created,  or  it  would  not  have  been 
necessary  to  bring  the  standard  of  obedience  down  to  his  impaired 
condition. 

5.  The  fifth  fact  is,  that,  c\-en  after  a  serious  wisli  and  intention  has 
been  formed  in  men  to  renounce  these  views,  and  "  to  live  righteously, 
soberly,  and  godly,"  as  becomes  creatures  made  to  glorify  God,  and  on 
their  trial  for  eternity,  strong  and  constant  resistance  is  made  by  the 
passions,  appetites,  and  inclinations  of  the  heart  at  every  step  of  the 
attempt. 

This  is  so  clearly  a  matter  of  universal  experience,  that,  in  the  moral 
writings  of  every  age  and  country,  and  in  the  very  phrases  and  turns 
of  all  languages,  virtue  is  associated  with  ditliculty,  and  represented 
under  the  notion  of  a  warl^irc.  >  irtue  has  always,  therefore,  been 
represented  as  the  subject  of  acquirement ;  and  resistance  of  e\al  as 
being  necessary  to  its  preservation.  It  has  been  made  to  consist  in 
self  rule,  which  is,  of  course,  restraint  upon  opposite  tendencies :  the 
mind  is  said  to  be  subject  to  diseases.  (2)  and  the  remedy  for  these  dis- 
eases is  placed  in  something  outward  to  itself — ^in  religion,  among 
inspired  men  ;  in  philosophy,  among  the  heathen.  (3) 

This  constant  struggle  against  the  rules  and  resolves  of  virtue  has 
been  acknowledged  in  all  ages,  and  among  Christian  nations  more 
especially,  where,  just  as  the  knowledge  of  what  the  Divine  law  requires 
is  difiused,  the  sense  of  the  difficulty  of  approaching  to  its  requisitions 
is  Mi ;  and  in  proportion  as  the  efforts  made  to  conform  to  it  are  sincere, 
is  the  despair  which  arises  from  repeated  and  constant  deleats,  when 
the  aid  of  Divine  grace  is  not  called  in.  "  O  wretched  man  that  I  am ! 
who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?" 

These  five  facts  of  universal  history  and  experience,  as  they  cannot 
be  denied,  and  as  it  would  be  most  absurd  to  discuss  the  moral  condi- 
tion  of  human  nature  without  any  reference  to  them,  must  be  accounted 
for ;  and  it  shall  now  be  our  business  to  inquire,  whether  they  can  be 
best  explained  on  the  hypothesis  drawn  from  the  Scripture,  that  man  is 
by  nature  totally  cornipt  and  degenerate,  and  of  himself  incapable  of 
any  good  thing ;  or  on  the  hypothesis  of  man's  natural  goodness,  or,  at 
worst,  his  natural  inditlerence  equally  to  good  and  to  evil ;  notions 
which  come  to  us  ah  initio  with  this  disadvantage,  that  tliey  have  no 
text  of  Scnpture  to  adduce  to  atibrd  them  any  plausible  support 
whatever.  * 

(2>  "Hac  conditiouc  nati  snmus,  animalia  obnoxia  non  paucioribus  animi  quam 
corporis  morbis."  (Sever a,) 

(3)  "  Videamus  c[uanta  sint  qxisp  a  philosophia  remedia  morbis  aniraorum  adhi- 
beantur-  est  enim  qua>dani  medicina  certe,"  &c.  (Cicero.) 


SECO.ND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITLTES.  67 

The  testimony  of  Scripture  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  first  hypo- 
thesis. 

It  has  already  been  established,  that  the  full  penalty  of  Adam's  offence 
passed  upon  his  posterity  ;  and,  consequently,  that  part  of  it  which  con- 
sists in  the  spiritual  death  which  has  been  before  explained.  A  full 
provision  to  meet  this  case  is,  indeed,  as  we  have  seen,  made  in  the 
Gospel ;  but  that  does  not  affect  the  state  in  which  men  are  born.  It 
is  a  cure  for  an  actually  existing  disease  brought  by  us  into  the  world  ; 
for,  were  not  this  the  case,  the  evangelical  institution  would  be  one  of 
prevention,  not  of  remedy,  under  which  light  it  is  always  represented. 

If,  then,  we  are  all  born  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death  ;  that  is,  with- 
out  that  vital  influence  of  God  upon  our  faculties,  which  we  have  seen 
to  be  necessary  to  give  them  a  right,  a  holy  tendency,  and  to  maintain 
them  in  it ;  and  if  that  is  restored  to  man  by  a  dispensation  of  grace 
and  favour,  it  follows  that,  in  his  natural  state,  he  is  born  with  sinful 
propensities,  and  that,  by  nature,  he  is  capable,  in  his  own  strength,  of 
"  no  good  thing." 

With  this  the  Scriptural  account  agrees. 

It  is  probable,  though  great  stress  need  not  be  laid  upon  it,  that  when 
it  is  said.  Gen.  v,  3,  that  "  Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,"  that 
there  is  an  implied  opposition  between  the  likeness  of  God,  in  which 
Adam  was  made,  and  the  likeness  of  Adam,  in  which  his  son  was  be- 
gotten. It  is  not  said,  that  he  begat  a  son  in  the  likeness  of  God  ;  a 
very  appropriate  expression,  if  Adam  had  not  fallen,  and  if  human  na- 
ture  had  sustained,  in  consequence,  no  injury ;  and  such  a  declaration 
was  apparently  called  for,  had  this  been  the  case,  to  show,  what  would 
have  been  a  very  important  fact,  that,  notwithstanding  the  personal 
delinquency  of  Adam,  yet  human  nature  itself  had  sustained  no  deterio- 
ration, but  was  propagated  without  corruption.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
said,  that  he  begat  a  son  in  his  own  hkeness  ;  which,  probably,  was 
mentioned  on  purpose  to  exclude  the  idea,  that  the  image  of  God  was 
hereditary  in  man. 

In  Gen.  vi,  5,  it  is  stated,  as  the  cause  of  the  flood,  that  "  God  saw 
that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  ever)'  ima- 
gination of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually."  Here, 
it  is  truey  that  the  actual  moral  state  of  the  antediluvians  may  only  be 
spoken  of,  and  that  the  text  does  not  directly  prove  the  doctrine  of  here- 
ditary depravity  :  yet  is  the  actual  wickedness  of  man  traced  up  to  the 
heart,  as  its  natural  source,  in  a  manner  which  seems  to  intimate,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  natural  corruption  of  man  was  held  by  the  writer, 
and  by  that  his  mode  of  expression  was  influenced.  "  The  heart  of  man 
is  here  put  for  his  soul.  This  God  had  formed  with  a  marvellous  think- 
ing power.  But  so  is  his  soul  debased,  that  every  imagination,  figment, 
formation  of  the  thoughts  of  it,  is  evil,  only  evil,  continually  evil.   What- 

2 


68  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ever  it  forms  within  itself  as  a  thinking  power,  is  an  evil  formation.  If 
all  men's  actual  wickedness  sprung  from  the  evil  formation  of  their  cor- 
rupt heart,  and  if,  consequently,  they  were  sinners  from  the  birth,  so  are 
all  others  Ukewise."  {Hehden.) 

That  this  was  the  theological  sentiment  held  and  taught  by  Moses, 
and  implied  even  in  this  passage,  is  made  ver\'  clear  by  Gen.  viii,  21, 
"  I  will  not  again  curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man's  sake  :  for  the 
imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth  ;  neither  will  I  again 
smite  any  more  every  Hving  thing."  The  sense  of  which  plainly  is, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  wickedness  of  mankind,  though  they  sin  from 
their  childhood,  yet  would  he  not,  on  that  account,  again  destroy  "  every 
living  thing."  Here  it  is  to  be  observed,  1.  That  the  words  are  spoken 
as  soon  as  Noah  came  forth  from  the  ark,  and,  therefore,  after  the  ante- 
diluvian race  of  actual  and  flagrant  transgressors  had  perished,  and 
before  the  family  of  Noah  had  begun  to  multiply  upon  the  earth  ;  when, 
in  fact,  there  were  no  human  beings  upon  earth  but  righteous  Noah  and 
his  family.  2.  Thatihey  are  spoken  of  "man"  as  MA^' ;  that  is,  of 
human  nature,  and,  consequently,  of  Noah  himself  and  the  persons 
saved  with  him  in  the  ark.  3.  That  it  is  affirmed  of  max,  that  is,  of 
mankind,  that  the  imagination  of  the  heart  "  is  evil  from  his  youth." 
Now  the  term  "imagination"  includes  the  thoughts,  affections,  and  in- 
clinations ;  and  the  word  "  youth"  the  whole  time  from  the  birth,  the 
earhest  age  of  man.  This  passage,  therefore,  affirms  the  natural  and 
hereditary-  tendency  of  man  to  evil. 

The  book  of  Job,  which  embodies  the  patriarchal  theolog}*,  gives 
ample  testimony  to  this  as  the  faith  of  those  ancient  times.  Job  xi,  12, 
"  Vain  man  would  be  wise,  though  man  be  born  like  a  wild  ass's  colt ;" 
fierce,  untractable,  and  scarcely  to  be  subjected.  This  is  the  case  from 
his  birth;  it  is  affirmed  of  man,  and  is  equally  applicable  to  every 
age;  it  is  his  natural  condition,  he  is  *'born,^^  literally,  '^the  colt  of  a 
wild  ass." 

"  Man  is  born  unto  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upward,"  Job  v,  7  ;  that 
is,  he  is  inevitably  subjected  to  trouble ;  this  is  the  law  of  his  state  in 
this  world,  as  fixed  and  certain  as  one  of  the  laws  of  nature.  The 
proof  from  this  passage  is  inferential ;  but  very  decisive.  Unless  man 
is  born  a  sinner,  it  is  not  to  be  accounted  for,  that  he  should  be  bom  to 
trouble.  Pain  and  death  are  the  consequences  only  of  sin,  and  abso- 
lutely innocent  beings  must  be  exempt  from  them. 

"  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?"  Job  xiv,  4.  The 
word  thing  is  supplied  by  our  translators,  but  person  is  evidently  under- 
stood. Cleanness  and  uncleanness,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  sig- 
nify sin  and  holiness ;  and  the  text  clearly  asserts  the  natural  impossi- 
bility of  any  man  being  born  sinless,  because  he  is  produced  by  guilty 
and  defiled  parents.  • 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  69 

"  What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean  ;  and  he  which  is  born  of  a 
woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous?"  Job  xv,  14.  The  same  doctrine 
is  here  affirmed  as  in  the  preceding  text,  only  more  fully,  and  it  may 
be  taken  as  an  explanation  of  the  former,  which  was,  perhaps,  a  pro- 
verbial expression.  The  rendering  of  the  LXX  is  here  worthy  of  notice, 
for,  though  it  does  not  agree  with  the  present  Hebrew  text,  it  strongly 
marks  the  sentiments  of  the  ancient  Jews  on  the  point  in  question. 
"  Who  shall  be  clean  from  filth  ?  Not  one ;  even  though  his  life  on 
earth  he  a  single  day." 

Psalm  li,  5,  "  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity  ;  and  in  sin  did  my 
mother  conceive  me.''  What  possible  sense  can  be  given  to  this  pas- 
sage on  the  hypothesis  of  man's  natural  innocence  ?  It  is  in  vain  to 
render  the  first  clause,  "I  was  brought  forth  in  iniquity;"  for  nothing 
is  gained  by  it.  David  charges  nothing  upon  his  mother,  of  whom  he 
is  not  speaking,  but  of  himself :  he  was  conceived,  or,  if  it  please  better, 
was  born  a  sinner.  And  if  the  rendering  of  the  latter  clause  were 
allowed,  which  yet  has  no  authority,  "  in  sin  did  my  mother  m^rse  me;" 
still  no  progress  is  made  in  getting  quit  of  its  testimony  to  the  moral 
corruption  of  children,  for  it  is  the  child  only  which  is  nursed,  and,  if 
that  be  allowed,  natural  depravity  is  allowed,  depravity  before  reasonable 
choice,  which  is  the  point  in  question. 

Psalm  Iviii,  3,  4,  "  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb,  they  go 
astray  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  speaking  lies."  They  are  alienated 
from  the  womb  ;  "  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  from  the  time  of  their 
coming  into  the  world."  (Wesley.)  "Speaking  lies:"  they  show  a 
tendency  to  speak  Hes  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  it,  which  shows 
the  existence  of  a  natural  principle  of  falsehood. 

Proverbs  xxii,  15,  and  xxix,  15,  "Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart 
of  a  child  ;  but  the  rod  of  correction  shall  drive  it  far  from  him."  "  The 
rod  and  reproof  give  wisdom,  but  a  child  left  to  himself  bringeth  his 
mother  to  shame."  "  These  passages  put  together  are  a  plain  testimony 
of  the  inbred  corruption  of  young  children.  '  Foolishness,'  in  the  former, 
is  not  barely  *  appetite,'  or  a  want  of  the  knowledge  attainable  by  in- 
struction, as  some  have  said.  Neither  of  these  deserve  that  sharp  cor- 
rection recommended.  But  it  is  an  indisposedness  to  what  is  good,  and 
a  strong  propensity  to  evil.  This  fooHshness  '  is  bound  up  in  the  heart 
of  a  child  ;'  it  is  rooted  in  his  inmost  nature.  It  is,  as  it  were,  fastened 
to  him  by  strong  cords  ;  so  the  original  word  signifies.  From  this  cor- 
ruption of  the  heart  in  every  child,  it  is  that  '  the  rod  of  correction'  is 
necessary  to  give  him  wisdom ;  hence  it  is  that  a  child  left  to  himself, 
without  correction,  '  brings  his  mother  to  shame.'  If  a  child  were  born 
equally  inclined  to  virtue  and  vice,  why  should  the  wise  man  speak  of 
foolishness,  or  wickedness  as  fastened  so  closely  to  his  heart  ?  And  why 
should  the  rod  and  reproof  be  so  necessary  for  him?    These  texts, 


70  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

therefore,  are  another  clear  proof  of  the  corruption  of  human  nature." 
{Hebden.) 

The  quotation  of  Psalm  xiv,  2,  3,  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  Romans  iii, 
10,  &;c,  is  also  an  important  Scriptural  proof  of  the  universal  moral  cor- 
ruption of  mankind.  "  The  Lord  looked  down  from  heaven  upon  the 
children  of  men,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  understand,  and  seek 
God.  They  are  all  gone  aside,  they  are  altogether  become  filthy; 
there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one."  When  the  psalmist  affirms 
this  of  the  children  of  men,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  he  is  speaking  of 
all  men,  and  of  human  nature  as  originating  actual  depravity  ;  and  it  is, 
indeed,  obvious,  from  the  context,  that  he  is  thus  accounting  for  Athe- 
ism and  other  evils,  the  prevalence  of  which  he  laments.  But,  as  the 
apostle  quotes  this  passage  and  the  parallel  one  in  the  53d  Psalm  as 
Scriptural  proofs  of  the  universal  corruption  of  mankind,  the  sense  of 
the  psalmist  is  fixed  by  his  authority,  and  cannot  be  questioned.  All, 
indeed,  that  the  opponents  of  this  interpretation  can  say,  is,  that,  in  the 
same  psalm  the  psalmist  speaks  also  of  righteous  persons,  "  God  is  in 
the  generation  of  the  righteous ;"  but  that  is  nothing  to  the  purpose, 
seeing  that  those  who  contend  for  the  universal  corruption  of  mankind, 
allow  also  that  a  remedy  has  been  provided  for  the  evil ;  and  that,  by 
its  application  some,  in  every  age,  have  been  made  righteous,  who  were 
originally  and  naturally  sinful.  In  fact,  it  could  not  be  said,  with  re- 
spect to  men's  actual  moral  conduct  in  that,  or  probably  in  any  age, 
that  "  not  one"  was  "  righteous  ;"  but  in  every  age  it  may  be  said,  that 
not  one  is  so  originally,  or  by  nature ;  so  that  the  passage  is  not  to  be 
explained  on  the  assumption  that  the  inspired  writer  is  speaking  only 
of  the  practice  of  mankind  in  his  owti  times. 

Of  the  same  kind  are  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  what  is 
morally  evil  as  the  characteristic  and  distinguishing  mark,  not  of  any 
mdividual,  not  of  any  particular  people,  hving  in  some  one  age  or  part 
of  the  world  ;  but  of  man,  of  human  nature  ;  and  especially  those  which 
make  sinfulness  the  natural  state  of  that  part  of  the  human  race  who 
have  not  undergone  that  moral  renovation  which  is  the  fruit  of  a  Divine 
operation  in  the  heart,  a  work  ascribed  particularly  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Of  these  texts  the  number  is  very  great,  and  it  adds  also  to  the  strength 
of  their  evidence,  that  the  subject  is  often  mentioned  incidentally,  and 
by  way  of  illustration  and  argument  in  support  of  something  else,  and 
must,  therefore,  be  taken  to  be  an  acknowledged  and  settled  opinion 
among  the  sacred  writers,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  one 
which  neither  they  nor  thos.e  to  whom  they  spoke  or  wrote  questioned 
or  disputed. 

"  Cursed,"  says  the  Prophet  Jeremiah,  "  is  he  that  trusteth  in  man." 
Why  in  man,  if  he  were  not  by  nature  unworthy  of  trust  ?  On  the  scheme 
of  man's  natural  innocence,  it  would  surely  have  been  more  appropriate 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  71 

to  say,  Cursed  be  he  that  tnisteth  indiscriminately  in  men,  some  of  whom 
may  have  become  corrupt ;  but  here  human  nature  itself,  man,  in  the 
abstract,  is  held  up  to  suspicion  and  caution.  "  The  heart,"  proceeds 
the  same  prophet,  '•  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked, 
who  can  know  it?"  which  is  the  reason  adduced  for  the  caution  pre- 
ceding against  trusting  in  man.  It  is  precisely  in  the  same  way  that  our 
Lord  designates  human  nature,  when  he  affirms,  that  "  from  within,  out 
of  the  heart,  proceed  evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  murders,  &c  ;  all  these 
things  come  from  within,  and  defile  the  man."  This  representation  would 
not  be  true,  on  the  scheme  of  natural  innocence.  All  these  things  would 
come  from  without,  not  from  within,  as  their  original  source.  The 
heart  must  first  be  corrupted  by  outward  circumstances,  before  it  could 
be  the  corrupter. 

But  to  proceed  with  instances  of  the  more  incidental  references  to  the 
fault  and  disease  of  man's  very  nature,  with  which  the  Scriptures  abound. 
*'  How  much  more  abominable  and  filthy  is  man,  who  drinketh  iniquity 
like  water  ?"  Job  xv,  16.  "  Madness  is  in  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men, 
while  they  five,"  Eccles.  ix,  3.  "  But  they  like  7nen  have  transgressed  the 
covenant,"  Hos.  vi,  7.  "  If  ye,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts 
unto  your  children,"  Matt,  vii,  11.  "  Thou  savourest  not  the  things  that 
be  of  God  ;  but  the  tilings  that  be  of  jieiv,"  Matt,  xvi,  23.  "  Are  ye  not 
carnal,  and  walk  as  men?"  1  Cor.  iii,  3.  "That  he  no  longer  should 
live  the  rest  of  his  time  in  the  lusts  of  men  ;  but  to  the  will  of  God,"  1 
Peter  iv,  2.  "  We  are  of  God,  and  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness," 
1  John  V,  19.  "  Except  a  man  he  horn  again,  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God,"  John  iii,  8.  "  That  ye  put  ofiT  the  old  man,  and  be  re- 
newed in  the  spirit  of  your  mind  ;  and  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man," 
Eph.  iv,  22-24. 

The  above  texts  are  to  be  considered  as  specimens  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  sacred  writers  speak  of  the  subject  rather  ihan  as  approaching 
to  an  enumeration  of  the  passages  in  which  the  same  sentiments  are 
found  in  great  variety  of  expression,  and  which  are  adduced  on  various 
occasions.  They  are,  however,  sufficient  to  show,  that  man,  and  the 
heart  of  man,  and  the  moral  nature  of  man,  are  spoken  of  by  them  in  a 
way  not  to  be  reconciled  to  the  notion  of  their  purity,  or  even  their  indiffer- 
ence to  good  and  evil.  On  two  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  however, 
which  irresistibly  fix  the  whole  of  this  evidence  in  favour  of  the  opinion 
of  the  universal  Church  of  Christ,  in  all  ages,  our  remarks  may  be  some- 
what more  extended.  The  first  is  our  Lord's  discourse  with  Nico- 
demus,  John  iii,  in  which  he  declares  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth,  in 
contradistinction  to  our  natural  birth,  in  order  to  our  entrance  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  ;  and  lays  it  down,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  sole 
author  of  this  change,  and  that  what  is  born  of  the  flesh  cannot  alter  its 
nature ;  it  is  flesh  still,  and  must  always  remain  so,  and  in  that  state  ia 

2 


72  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

unfit  for  heaven.  "Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God ;  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  Throughout  the 
New  Testament,  it  will  be  found,  that  when  flesh  and  spirit  are,  in  a 
moral  sense,  opposed  to  each  other,  the  one  means  the  corrupt  nature 
and  habits  of  men,  not  sanctified  by  the  Gospel ;  the  other,  either  the 
principle  and  habit  of  holiness  in  good  men,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  himself, 
who  imparts,  and  constantly  nurtures  them.  "  I  know  that  in  me  (that 
is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing,"  Rom.  yii  18.  "  I  mj'^self  with 
the  mind  serve  the  law  of  God  ;  but  with  the  flesh,  the  law  of  sin,"  Rom. 
vii,  25.  "  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are 
in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  \he  fleshy  but  after  the  Spirit,"  Rom. 
viii,  1.  "  They  that  are  after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh  ; 
but  they  that  are  after  the  Spirit  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  For  to  be 
carnally  minded  is  death ;  but  to  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace. 
Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  ;  for  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.  So  then  they  that  are  in  the 
flesh  cannot  please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit, 
if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you,"  Rom.  viii,  5-9. 

These  passages  from  St.  Paul  serve  to  fix  the  meaning  of  the  terms, 
flesh  and  Spirit,  as  used  by  the  Jews,  and  as  they  occur  in  the  discourse 
of  our  Lord  with  Nicodemus ;  and  they  are  so  exactly  parallel  to  it, 
that  they  fully  confirm  the  opinion  of  those  who  understand  our  Lord 
as  expressly  asserting,  that  man  is  by  nature  corrupt  and  sinful,  and  un- 
fit, in  consequence,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  that  all  amendment 
of  his  case  must  result,  not  from  himself,  so  totally  is  he  gone  from  ori- 
ginal righteousness ;  but  from  that  special  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
Avhich  produces  a  new  birth  or  regeneration.  Both  assert  the  natural 
state  of  man  to  be  fleshly,  that  is,  morally  corrupt ;  both  assert,  that  in 
man  himself  there  is  no  remedy  ;  and  both  attribute  principles  of  holiness 
to  a  supernatural  agency,  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  himself. 

No  criticism  can  make  this  language  consistent  with  the  theory  of  natu- 
ral innocence.  St.  Paul  describes  the  state  of  m,an,  before  he  comes 
under  the  quickening  and  renewing  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  being  "  in 
the  flesh  ;"  in  which  state  "  he  cannot  please  God  ;"  as  having  a  "  carnal 
mind"  which  "  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  subject  to  the  law  of  God."  Our 
Lord,  in  Uke  manner,  describes  the  state  of  "  the  flesh,"  this  condition  of 
entire  unfitness  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  our  natural  state ;  and  to 
make  this  the  stronger,  he  refers  this  unfitness  for  heaven  not  to  our  acquir- 
ed habits,  but  to  the  state  in  which  we  are  born  ;  for  the  very  reason  which 
he  gives  for  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth  is,  that  "  that  which  is  horn  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh,"  and  therefore  we  "  must  be  horn  again."  To  interpret, 
therefore,  the  phrase,  "  to  be  flesh,  as  being  born  of  the  flesh,"  merely  to 
signify  that  we  are,  by  natural  birth,  endowed  with  the  physical  powers 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  73 

of  human  nature,  is  utterly  absurd  ;  for  what,  then,  is  it  to  be  born  of 
the  Spirit  ?  Is  it  to  receive  physical  powers  which  do  not  belong  to 
human  nature  ?  Or,  if  they  go  a  step  farther,  and  admit,  that  "  to  be 
flesh  as  being  bom  of  the  flesh,"  means  to  be  frail  and  mortal  like  our 
parents ;  still  the  interpretation  is  a  physical  and  not  a  moral  one,  and 
leads  to  this  absurdity,  that  we  must  interpret  the  being  born  of  the  Spirit 
physically  and  not  morally,  likewise.  Now  since  the  being  born  of  the  Spirit 
refers  to  a  change  which  is  effected  in  time,  and  not  at  the  resurrection, 
because  our  Lord  speaks  of  being  "  born  of  water,'^  as  well  as  the  Spirit, 
by  which  he  means  baptism ;  and,  as  St.  Paul  says  to  the  Romans,  in 
the  passage  above  quoted,  "  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit ;" 
and  therefore  speaks  of  their  present  experience  in  this  world,  it  may  be 
asked,  what  physical  change  did,  in  reality,  take  place  in  them  in  con- 
sequence of  being  "  bom  of  the  Spirit  ]"  On  all  hands  it  is  allowed,  that 
none  took  place  ;  that  they  remained  "  frail  and  mortal"  still ;  and  it 
follows,  therefore,  that  it  is  a  moral  and  not  a  physical  change  which  is 
spoken  of,  both  by  our  Lord  and  by  the  apostle ;  and,  if  a  moral  change 
from  sin  to  holiness,  then  is  the  natural  state  of  man  from  his  birth,  and 
in  consequence  of  his  birth,  sinful  and  corrupt. 

The  other  passage  is  the  argument  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  in  which  the  apostle  "  proves  both  Jews  and  Gentiles 
under  sin,  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may  be- 
come guilty  before  God  ;"  and  then  proposes  the  means  of  salvation  by 
faith  in  Christ,  on  the  express  ground  that  "  all  have  sinned  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God."  Whoever  reads  that  argument,  and  con- 
siders the  universality  of  the  terms  used,  all,  every,  all  the  world, 
BOTH  Jews  and  Gentiles,  must  conclude,  in  all  fairness  of  interpreta- 
tion, that  the  whole  human  race,  of  ever}''  age,  is  intended.  But,  if  any 
will  construe  his  words  partially,  then  he  is  placed  in  the  following 
dilemma  : — The  apostle  grounds  the  wisdom  and  mercy  of  that  provision 
which  is  made  for  man's  salvation  in  the  Gospel  upon  man's  sinfulness, 
danger,  and  helplessness.  Now  the  Gospel  as  a  remedy  for  disease,  as 
salvation  from  danger,  is  designed  for  all  men,  or  but  for  a  part ;  if  for 
all,  then  all  are  diseased  and  in  danger ;  if  but  for  a  part,  then  the  un- 
diseased  part  of  the  human  race,  those  who  are  in  no  danger,  have  no 
interest  in  the  Gospel,  it  is  not  adapted  to  their  case  ;  and  not  only  is  the 
argument  of  the  apostle  lost,  but  those  who  advocate  this  notion  must 
explain  how  it  is,  that  our  Lord  himself  commanded  the  Gospel  to  be 
preached  "  to  every  creature,''^  if  but  a  part  of  mankind  needs  its  sal- 
vation. 

The  doctrine,  then,  of  Scripture  is,  I  think,  clearly  established  to  be, 
that  of  the  natural  and  universal  corruption  of  man's  nature ;  and  we 
now  consider,  whether  on  this  ground,  or  on  the  hypothesis  of  man's 
natural  innocence  or  indiflerence  to  good  or  to  evil,  the  facts  above 

2 


74  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

enumerated  can  be  best  explained.  They  are,  1.  The,  at  least,  generoZ 
corruption  of  manners  in  all  times  and  countries.  2.  The  strength  of 
the  tendency  in  man  to  evil.  3.  The  early  appearance  of  the  principles 
of  various  vices  in  children.  4.  Every  man's  consciousness  of  a  natu- 
ral tendency  in  his  mind  to  one  or  more  evils.  5.  That  general  resistance 
to  virtue  in  the  heart,  which  renders  education,  influence,  watchfulness, 
and  conflict  necessary  to  counteract  the  force  of  evil.  These  points 
have  been  already  explained  more  at  large  ;  and  they  are  facts  which,  it 
is  presumed  cannot  be  denied,  and  such  as  have  the  confirmation  of 
history  and  experience. 

That  they  are  easily  and  fully  accounted  for  by  the  Scriptural  doctrine 
is  obvious.  The  fountain  is  bitter,  and  the  tree  is  corrupt ;  the  bitter 
stream  and  the  bad  fruit  are,  therefore,  the  natural  consequences.  But 
the  advocates  of  the  latter  hypothesis  have  no  means  of  accounting  for 
these  moral  phenomena,  except  by  referring  them  to  bad  example  and 
a  vicious  education. 

Let  us  take  the  first.  To  account  for  general  wickedness,  they  refer 
to  general  example. 

But,  1.  This  does  not  account  for  the  introduction  of  moral  wicked. 
ness.  The  children  of  Adam  were  not  born  until  after  the  repentance 
of  our  first  parents  and  their  restoration  to  the  Divine  favour.  They  ap- 
pear to  have  been  his  devout  worshippers,  and  to  have  had  access  to  his 
"  presence,"  the  visible  glory  of  the  Shechinah.  From  what  example, 
then,  did  Cain  learn  malice,  hatred,  and  finally,  murder  ?  Example  will 
not  account,  also,  for  the  too  common  fact  of  the  children  of  highly  vir- 
tuous  parents  becoming  immoral ;  for,  since  the  examples  nearest  to  them 
and  constantly  present  with  them  are  good  examples,  if  the  natural  dis- 
position were  as  good  as  this  hypothesis  assumes,  the  good  example 
always  present  ought  to  be  more  influential  than  bad  examples  at  a 
distance,  and  only  occasionally  seen  or  heard  of. 

2.  If  men  are  naturally  disposed  to  good,  or  only  not  indisposed  to 
it,  it  is  not  accounted  for,  on  this  hyhothesis,  how  bad  example  should 
have  become  general,  that  is,  how  men  should  generally  have  become 
wicked. 

If  the  natural  disposition  be  more  in  favour  of  good  than  evil,  then 
there  ought  to  have  been  more  good  than  evil  in  the  world,  which  is 
contradicted  by  fact ;  if  there  had  been  only  an  indifference  in  our 
minds  to  good  and  evil,  then  at  least,  the  quantum  of  vice  and  virtue  in 
society  ought  to  have  been  pretty  equally  divided,  which  is  also  contrary 
to  fact ;  and  also  it  ought  to  have  followed  from  this,  that  at  least  all 
the  children  of  virtuous  persons  would  have  been  virtuous  :  that,  for 
instance,  the  descendants  of  Seth  would  have  followed  in  succession  the 
steps  of  their  righteous  forefathers,  though  the  children  of  Cain  (passing 
by  the  difficulty  of  his  own  lapse)  should  have  become  vicious.     On 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  75 

neither  supposition  can  the  existence  of  a  general  evil  example  in  the 
world  be  accounted  for.  It  ought  not  to  have  existed,  and  if  so, 
the  general  corruption  of  mankind  cannot  be  explained  by  it. 

3.  This  very  method  of  explaining  the  general  viciousness  of  society 
does  itself  suppose  the  power  of  bad  example ;  and,  indeed,  in  this  it 
agrees  with  universal  opinion.  All  the  morahsts  of  public  and  domestic 
life,  all  professed  teachers,  all  friends  of  youth,  all  parents  have  repeated 
their  cautions  against  evil  society  to  those  whom  they  wished  to  pre- 
serve from  vice.  The  writings  of  morahsts,  heathen  and  inspired,  are 
full  of  these  admonitions,  and  they  are  embodied  in  the  proverbs  and 
wise  traditional  sayings  of  all  civilized  nations.  But  the  very  force  of 
evil  example  can  only  be  accounted  for,  by  supposing  a  proneness  in 
youth  to  be  corrupted  by  it.  Why  should  it  be  more  influential  than 
good  example,  a  fact  universally  acknowledged,  and  so  strongly  felt, 
that,  for  one  person  preserved  by  the  sole  influence  of  a  good  example, 
every  body  expects  that  a  great  number  would  be  corrupted  by  an  evil 
one  ?  But  if  the  hypothesis  of  man's  natural  innocence  were  true,  this 
ought  not  to  be  expected  as  a  probable,  much  less  as  a  certain  result. 
Bad  example  would  meet  with  resistance  from  a  good  nature ;  and  it 
would  be  much  more  difficult  to  influence  by  bad  examples  than  by 
good  ones. 

4.  Nor  does  example  account  for  the  other  facts  in  the  above  enumera- 
tion.  It  does  not  account  for  that  strong  bias  to  evil  in  men,  which,  in 
all  ages,  has  borne  down  the  most  powerful  restraints  ;  for  from  this 
tendency  that  corrupt  general  example  has  sprung,  which  is  alleged  as 
the  cause  of  it ;  and  it  must,  therefore,  have  existed  previously,  because 
the  general  example,  that  is,  the  general  corrupt  practice  of  men  is  its 
effect.  We  cannot,  in  this  way,  account  for  the  early  manifestation  of 
wrong  principles,  tempers,  and  affections  in  children  ;  since  they  appear 
at  an  age  when  example  can  have  little  influence,  and  even  when  the 
surrounding  examples  are  good,  as  well  as  when  they  are  evil.  Why, 
too,  should  virtue  always  be  found  more  or  less  a  conflict  ?  so  that  self- 
government  and  self-resistance  are,  in  all  cases,  necessary  for  its  preser- 
vation. The  example  of  others  will  not  account  for  this ;  for  mere 
example  can  only  influence  when  it  is  approved  by  the  judgment ;  but 
here  is  a  case  in  which  evil  is  not  approved,  in  which  "  whatsoever 
things  are  true,  whatsoever  things  are  pure,"  are  approved,  desired,  and 
cultivated ;  and  yet  the  resistance  of  the  heart  to  the  judgment  is  so 
powerful,  that  a  constant  warfare  and  a  strict  command  are  necessary 
to  perseverance. 

Let  us,  then,  see  whether  a  bad  education,  the  other  cause,  usually 
alleged  to  account  for  these  facts,  will  be  more  successful. 

1.  This  cause  will  no  more  account  for  the  introduction  of  passions 
so  hateful  as  those  of  Cain,  issuing  in  a  fratricide  so  odious,  into  the 

2 


76  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

family  of  Adam,  than  will  example.  As  there  was  no  example  of  these 
evils  in  the  primeval  family,  so  certainly  there  was  no  education  which 
could  incite  and  encourage  them.  We  are,  also,  left  still  without  a 
reason  why,  in  well-ordered  and  religious  families,  where  education  and 
the  example,  too,  is  good,  so  many  instances  of  their  inefficacy  should 
occur.  If  bad  education  corrupts  a  naturally  well-disposed  mind,  then 
a  good  education  ought  still  more  powerfully  to  affect  it,  and  give  it  a 
right  tendency.  It  is  allowed,  that  good  example  and  good  education 
are,  in  many  instances,  effectual ;  but  we  can  account  for  them,  without 
giving  up  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  corruption  of  the  heart.  It  is, 
however,  impossible  for  those  to  account  for  those  failures  of  both 
example  and  instruction  which  often  take  place,  since,  on  the  hypothesis 
of  man's  natural  innocence  and  good  disposition,  they  ought  never  to 
occur,  or,  at  least,  but  in  very  rare  cases,  and  when  some  singular 
counteracting  external  causes  happen  to  come  into  operation. 

2.  We  may  also  ask,  how  it  came  to  pass,  unless  there  were  a  pre- 
disposing  cause  to  it,  that  education,  as  well  as  example,  should  have 
been  generally  bad  ?  Of  education,  indeed,  men  are  usually  more  care- 
ful  than  of  example.  The  lips  are  often  right  when  the  life  is  wrong ; 
and  many  practise  evil  who  will  not  go  so  far  as  to  teach  it.  If  human 
nature,  then,  be  born  pure,  or,  at  worst,  equally  disposed  to  good  and 
evil,  then  the  existence  of  a  generally  corrupting  system  of  education, 
in  all  countries  and  among  all  people,  cannot  be  accounted  for.  We 
have  an  effect  either  contrary  to  the  assigned  cause,  or  one  to  which 
the  cause  is  not  adequate — it  is  the  case  of  a  pure  fountain  sending  forth 
corrupt  streams ;  or  that  of  a  stream  which,  if  turbid,  has  a  constant 
tendency  to  defecation,  and  yet  becomes  still  more  muddy  as  it  flows 
along  its  course. 

3.  It  is  not,  however,  the  fact,  that  education  is  directly  and  univer- 
sally so  corrupting  a  cause  as  to  account  for  the  depravity  of  mankind. 
In  many  instances  it  has  been  defective ;  it  has  often  inculcated  false 
views  of  interest  and  honour ;  it  has  fostered  prejudices  and  even 
national,  though  not  social,  hatreds ;  but  it  has  only  in  kw  cases  been 
employed  to  teach  those  vices  into  which  men  have  commonly  fallen. 
In  fact,  education,  in  all  countries,  has  been,  in  no  small  degree,  opposed 
to  vice ;  and,  as  the  majority  of  the  worst  people  among  us  would 
shudder  to  have  their  children  instructed  in  the  vices  which  they  them- 
selves practise,  so,  in  the  worst  nations  of  antiquity,  the  characters  of 
schoolmasters  were  required  to  be  correct,  and  many  principles  and 
maxims  of  a  virtuous  kind  were,  doubtless,  taught  to  children.  When 
Horace  says  of  youth,  "  Cereus  in  vitium  flecti,  monitoribus  asper,"  he 
acknowledges  its  natural  tendency  to  receive  vicious  impressions,  but 
shows,  too,  that  it  was  not  left  without  contrary  admonition.  Precisely 
in  those  vices  which  all  education,  even  the  most  defective,  is  designed 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITtTES.  77 

to  guard  against,  the  world  has  displayed  its  depravity  most  obviously ; 
and  thus,  so  far  from  education  being  sufficient  to  account  for  the  evils 
which  have  stained  society  in  all  ages,  its  influence  has  been,  in  no 
small  degree,  opposed  to  them. 

4.  To  come  to  the  other  facts  which  must  be  accounted  for,  educa- 
tion is  placed  upon  the  same  ground  in  the  argument  as  example.  The 
early  evil  dispositions  in  children  cannot  thus  be  explained,  for  they 
appear  before  education  commences  ;  nor  does  any  man  refer  to  educa- 
tion his  propensity  to  constitutional  sins ;  the  resistance  he  often  feels 
to  good  in  his  heart ;  his  proneness  to  forget  God,  and  to  be  indifferent 
to  spiritual  and  eternal  objects  ;  all  these  he  feels  to  be  opposed  to  those 
very  principles  which  his  judgment  approves,  and  with  which  it  was 
furnished  by  education. 

It  is  only,  then,  by  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  natural  and  heredi- 
tary corruption  of  the  human  race,  commonly  called  original  sin,  (4) 
that  these  facts  are  fully  accounted  for ;  and  as  the  facts  themselves 
cannot  be  denied,  such  an  interpretation  of  the  Scripture  as  we  have 
given  above  is,  therefore,  abundantly  confirmed. 

As  the  fact  of  a  natural  inclination  to  evil  cannot  be  successfully 
combated,  some  have  taken  a  milder  view  of  the  case ;  and,  allowing 
these  tendencies  to  various  excesses,  account  for  them  by  their  being 
natural  tendencies  to  what  is  pleasing,  and  so,  for  this  reason,  they  deny 
them  to  be  sinful,  until  they  are  complied  with  and  approved  by  the 
will.  This  appears  to  be  the  view  of  Limborch,  and  some  of  the  later 
divines  of  the  Arminian  school,  who,  on  this  and  other  points,  very 
materially  departed  from  the  tenets  of  their  master.  (See  LimhorcWs 
Theologia  Christiana,  liber  iii,  caput  4.)  Nothing,  however,  is  gained 
by  this  notion,  when  strictly  examined ;  for,  let  it  be  granted  that  these 
propensities  are  to  things  naturally  pleasing,  and  that,  in  excess,  they 
are  out  of  their  proper  order  ;  yet  as  it  happens  that,  as  soon  as  every 
person  comes  to  years  to  know  that  they  are  wrong,  as  being  contrary 
to  the  Divine  law,  he  yet  chooses  them,  and  thus  without  dispute,  makes 
them  sins ;  this  universal  compliance  of  the  will  with  what  is  known  to 
be  evil  is  also  to  be  accounted  for,  as  well  as  the  natural  tendency  to  sin- 
ful gratifications.  Now,  as  we  have  proved  the  universality  of  sin,  this 
universal  tendency  of  the  will  to  choose  and  sanction  the  natural  pro- 
pensity^ to  unlawful  gratification  is  the  proof  of  a  natural  state  of  mind, 
not  only  defective,  but  corrupt,  which  is  what  we  contend  for.  If  it  be 
said,  that  these  natural  propensities  to  various  evils  in  children  are  not 
sinful  before  they  have  the  consent  of  the  will,  all  that  can  be  main- 
tained is  that  they  are  not  actual  sins,  which  no  one  asserts ;  but  as  a 
universal  choice  of  evil,  when  accountableness  takes  place,  proves  a 

(4)  The  term  "  original  sin"  appears  to  have  been  first  introduced  by  St. 
Augustine,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Pelagians. 

2 


78  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

universal  pravity  ot  the  will,  previous  to  the  actual  choice,  then  it 
inevitably  follows,  that,  though  infants  do  not  commit  actual  sin,  yet  that 
theirs  is  a  sinful  nature. 

Finally,  the  death  and  sufferings  to  which  children  are  subject  is  a 
proof  that  all  men,  from  their  birth,  are  "  constituted,"  as  the  apostle 
has  it,  and  treated  as  "  sinners."  An  innocent  creature  may  die  ;  no 
one  disputes  that ;  but  to  die  was  not  the  original  law  of  our  species, 
and  the  Scriptures  refer  death  solely  to  sin  as  its  cause.  Throughout 
the  sacred  writings,  too,  it  is  represented  as  a  penalty,  as  an  evil  of  the 
highest  kind ;  and  it  is  in  vain  to  find  out  ingenious  reasons  to  prove  it 
a  blessing  to  mankind.  They  prove  nothing  against  the  directly  oppo- 
site character  which  has  been  stamped  upon  death  and  the  suffering  of 
moral  disease,  by  the  testimony  of  God.  On  the  hypothesis  of  man's 
natural  innocence,  the  death  of  the  innocent  is  not  to  be  reconciled  to 
any  known  attribute  of  God,  to  any  manifested  principle  of  his  moral 
government ;  but  on  that  of  his  natural  corruptness  and  federal  relation 
to  Adam  it  is  explained  :  it  is  a  declaration  of  God's  hatred  of  sin ;  a 
proclamation  of  the  purity  and  inflexibility  of  his  law ;  while  the  con- 
nection of  this  state,  with  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  present 
"mercy  and  truth  meeting  together,  righteousness  and  peace  kissing 
each  other." 

As  to  that  in  which  original  sin  consists,  some  divines  and  some  public 
formularies  have  so  expressed  themselves,  that  it  might  be  inferred  that 
a  positive  evil,  infection,  and  taint  had  been  judicially  infused  into  man's 
nature  by  God,  which  has  been  transmitted  to  all  his  posterity.  Others, 
and  those  the  greater  number,  both  of  the  Calvinist  and  Arminian 
schools,  have  resolved  it  into  privation.  This  distinction  is  well  stated 
in  the  Private  Disputations  of  Arminius. 

"  But  since  the  tenor  of  the  covenant  into  which  God  entered  with 
our  first  parents  was  this,  that  if  they  continued  in  the  favour  and  grace 
of  God,  by  the  observance  of  that  precept  and  others,  the  gifts  which 
had  been  conferred  upon  them  should  be  transmitted  to  their  posterity, 
by  the  like  Divine  grace  which  they  had  received ;  but  if  they  should 
render  themselves  unworthy  of  those  favours,  through  disobedience,  that 
their  posterity  should  likewise  be  deprived  of  them,  and  should  be  liable 
to  the  contrary  evils :  hence  it  followed,  that  all  men,  who  were  to  be 
naturally  propagated  from  them,  have  become  obnoxious  to  death  tem- 
poral and  eternal,  and  have  been  destitute  of  that  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
or  of  original  righteousness.  This  punishment  is  usually  called  a  pri- 
vation of  the  image  of  God,  and  original  sin. 

"  But  we  allow  this  point  to  be  made  the  subject  of  discussion — beside 
the  want  or  absence  of  original  righteousness,  may  not  some  other  con- 
trary quality  be  constituted,  as  another  part  of  original  sin  ?  We  think 
it  is  more  probable,  that  this  absence  alone  of  original  righteousness  is 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    L\STITUTES.  79 

original  sin  itself,  since  it  alone  is  sufficient  for  the  commission  and  pro- 
duction  of  every  actual  sin  whatever." 

This  is  by  some  divines  called,  with  great  aptness,  "  a  depravation 
arising  from  a  deprivation,"  and  is  certainly  much  more  consonant  with 
the  Scriptures  than  the  opinion  of  the  infusion  of  evil  quaHties  into  the 
nature  of  man  by  a  positive  cause,  or  direct  tainting  of  the  heart.  This 
has  been,  indeed,  probably  an  opinion,  in  the  proper  sense,  with  few, 
and  has  rather  been  collected  from  the  strong  and  rhetorical  expressions 
under  which  the  moral  state  of  man  is  often  exhibited,  and,  on  this  ac- 
count, has  been  attacked  as  a  part  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  by  the 
advocates  of  original  innocence,  and  as  making  God  directly  the  author 
of  sin.  No  such  difficulty,  however,  accompanies  the  accurate  and 
guarded  statement  of  that  doctrine  in  the  sense  of  Scripture.  The  de- 
pravation,  the  pe^^•e^sion,  the  defect  of  our  nature  is  to  be  traced  to  our 
birth,  so  that  in  our  flesh  is  no  good  thing,  and  they  that  are  in  the  flesh 
cannot  please  God ;  but  this  state  arises  not  from  the  infusion  of  evil 
into  the  nature  of  man  by  God,  but  from  that  separation  of  man  from 
God,  that  extinction  of  spiritual  life  which  was  effected  by  sin,  and  the 
consequent  and  necessary  corruption  of  man's  moral  nature.  For  that 
positive  evil  and  corruption  may  flow  from  a  mere  privation  may  be 
illustrated  by  that  which  supphes  the  figure  of  speech,  "  death,"  under 
which  the  Scriptures  represent  the  state  of  mankind.  For,  as  in  the 
death  of  the  body,  the  mere  privation  of  the  principle  of  life  produces 
inflexibility  of  the  muscles,  the  extinction  of  heat,  and  sense,  and  motion, 
and  surrenders  the  body  to  the  operation  of  an  agency  which  life,  as 
long  as  it  continued,  resisted,  namely,  that  of  chymical  decomposition  ; 
so,  from  the  loss  of  spiritual  life,  followed  estrangement  from  God,  moral 
inability,  the  dominion  of  irregular  passions,  and  the  rule  of  appetite ; 
aversion,  in  consequence,  to  restraint ;  and  enmity  to  God. 

This  connection  of  positive  evil,  as  the  efl?ect,  with  privation  of  the 
life  and  image  of  God,  as  the  cause,  is,  however,  to  be  well  understood 
and  carefully  m.aintained,  or  otherwise  we  should  fall  into  a  great  error 
on  the  other  side,  as,  indeed,  some  have  done,  who  did  not  perceive  that 
the  corruption  of  man's  nature  necessarily  followed  upon  the  privation 
referred  to.  It  is,  therefore,  a  just  remark  of  Calvin,  that  "  those  who 
have  defined  original  sin  as  a  privation  of  the  original  righteousness, 
though  they  comprise  the  whole  of  the  subject,  yet  have  not  used  lan- 
guage sufficiently  expressive  of  its  operation  and  influence.  For  our 
nature  is  not  only  destitute  of  all  good,  but  is  so  fertile  in  all  evils,  that 
it  cannot  remain  inactive."  {Institutes.)  Indeed,  this  privation  is  not 
fully  expressed  by  the  phrase  "  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,"  un- 
less that  be  meant  to  include  in  it  the  only  source  of  righteousness  in 
even  the  first  man,  the  life  which  is  imparted  and  supplied  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.     A  similar  want  of  explicitness  we  observe  also  in  Calvin's  own 

2 


80  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTE^.  [PAKT 

Statement  in  his  generally  very  able  chapter  on  this  subject,  that  Adam 
lost  "  the  ornaments"  he  received  from  his  Maker  for  us  as  well  as  for 
himself;  unless  we  understand  by  these  original  "ornaments"  and  "en- 
dowments" of  human  nature  in  him,  the  principle  also,  as  above  stated, 
from  which  they  all  flowed  ;  and  which,  being  forfeited,  could  no  longer 
be  imparted  in  the  way  of  nature.  For  when  the  Spirit  was  restored  to 
Adam,  being  pardoned,  it  was  by  grace  and  favour ;  and  he  could  not 
impart  it  by  natural  descent  to  his  posterity,  though  born  of  him  when 
in  a  state  of  acceptance  with  God,  since  these  influences  are  the  gifts 
of  God,  which  are  imparted  not  by  the  first  but  by  the  second  Adam ; 
not  by  nature,  but  by  a  free  gift,  to  sinful  and  guilty  man,  the  law  being 
irreversible,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh." 

Arrninius,  in  the  above  quotation,  has  more  forcibly  and  explicitly 
expressed  that  privation  of  which  we  speak,  by  the  forfeiture  "  of  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  by  Adam,  for  himself  and  his  descendants,  and 
the  loss  of  original  righteousness  as  the  consequence. 

This  I  take  to  be  at  once  a  simple  and  a  Scriptural  view  of  the  case. 
President  Edwards,  who  well  argues  against  the  notion  of  the  infusion 
of  evil,  perplexes  his  subject  by  his  theory  of"  natural  and  supernatural 
principles,"  which  the  notes  of  Dr.  Williams,  his  editor,  who  has  intro- 
duced the  pecuharities  of  his  system  of  passive  power,  have  not  relieved. 
So  far,  certainly,  both  are  right ;  the  latter,  that  the  creature  cannot 
uphold  itself,  either  physically  or  morally,  without  God ;  the  former, 
that  our  natural  passions  and  appetites  can  only  be  controlled  by  the 
higher  principles,  which  are  "summarily  comprehended  in  Divine  love." 
But  the  power  which  upholds  the  rational  creature  in  spiritual  life  is  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  source  of  these  controUing  supernatural  powers, 
comprehended  in  "  Divine,"  is  also  the  Holy  Spirit ;  from  the  loss  of 
which  all  the  depravation  of  man's  nature  proceeded. 

This  point  may  be  briefly  elucidated.  The  infliction  of  spiritual  death, 
which  we  have  already  shown  to  be  included  in  the  original  sentence, 
consisted,  of  course,  in  the  loss  of  spiritual  life,  which  was  that  principle 
from  which  all  right  direction  and  control  of  the  various  powers  and 
faculties  of  man  flowed.  But  this  spiritual  life  in  the  first  man  was  not 
a  natural  effect,  that  is,  an  effect  which  would  follow  from  his  mere 
creation,  independent  of  the  vouchsafed  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  may  be  inferred  from  the  "new  creation,"  which  is  the  renewal 
of  man  after  the  image  of  Him  who  at  first  created  him.  This  is  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  even  after  this  change,  this  being  "  born 
again,"  man  is  not  able  to  preserve  himself  in  the  renewed  condition 
into  which  he  is  brought,  but  by  the  continuance  of  the  same  quickening 
and  aiding  influence.  No  future  growth  in  knowledge  and  experience ; 
no  power  of  habit,  long  persevered  in,  render  him  independent  of  the  help 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  he  has  rather,  in  proportion  to  this  growth,  a  deeper 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  81 

consciousness  of  his  need  of  the  indwelling  of  God,  and  of  what  the  apos- 
tie  calls  his  "mighty  working."  The  strongest  aspirations  of  this  new 
life  is  after  communion  and  constant  intercourse  with  God  ;  and  as  that  is 
the  source  of  new  strength,  so  this  renewed  strength  expresses  itself  in 
a  "  cleaving  unto  the  Lord,"  with  a  still  more  vigorous  "  purpose  of 
heart."  In  a  word,  the  sanctity  of  a  Christian  is  dependent  wholly  upon 
the  presence  of  the  Sanctifier.  We  can  only  work  out  our  own  salva- 
vation  as  "  God  worketh  in  us  to  will  and  to  do." 

Tliis  is  the  constant  language  of  the  New  Testament ;  but  if  we  are 
restored  to  what  was  lost  by  Adam,  through  the  benefit  brought  to  us 
by  the  second  Adam  ;  if  there  be  any  correspondency  between  the  moral 
state  of  the  regenerate  man  and  that  of  man  before  his  fall,  we  do  not 
speak  oi^  degree,  but  of  substantial  sameness  of  kind  and  quality;  if  love 
to  God  be  in  us  what  it  was  in  him  ;  if  holiness,  in  its  various  branches, 
as  it  flows  from  love,  be  in  us  what  it  was  in  him ;  we  have  sufficient 
reason  to  infer,  that  as  they  are  supported  in  us  by  the  influence  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  they  were  so  supported  in  him.  Certain  it  is,  that  before 
we  are  thus  quickened  by  the  Spirit,  we  are  "  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins;"  and  if  we  are  made  alive  by  that  Spirit,  it  is  a  strong  presump- 
tion that  the  withdrawing  of  that  Spirit  from  Adam,  when  he  wilfully 
sinned,  and  from  all  his  posterity,  that  is,  from  human  nature  itself,  was 
the  cause  of  the  death  and  the  depravation  which  followed. 

But  this  is  not  left  to  mere  inference.  For,  as  Mr.  Howe  justly  ob- 
serves, when  speaking  of  "  the  retraction  of  God's  Spirit  from  Adam," 
"  This  we  do  not  say  gratuitously  ;  for  do  but  consider  that  plain  text, 
Gal.  iii,  13,  '  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us  ;  for  cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree ; 
that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  upon  us  Gentiles,  that  we  might 
receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith.'  If  tl\e  remission  of  the 
curse  carry  with  it  the  conferring  of  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  then  the 
curse,  while  it  did  continue,  could  not  but  include  and  carry  in  it  the 
privation  of  the  Spirit.  This  was  part  of  the  curse  upon  apostate  Adam, 
the  loss  of  God's  Spirit.  As  soon  as  the  law  was  broken,  man  was  cursed, 
so  as  that  thereby  this  Spirit  should  be  withheld,  should  be  kept  off",  other- 
wise than  as  upon  the  Redeemer's  account,  and  according  to  his  methods 
it  should  be  restored.  Hereupon  it  could  not  but  ensue  that  the  holy 
image  of  God  must  be  erased  and  vanished."  {Posthumous  Works.) 

This  accounts  for  the  whole  case  of  man's  corruption.  The  Spirit's 
influence  in  him  did  not  prevent  the  possibility  of  his  sinning,  though  it 
afforded  sufficient  security  to  him,  as  long  as  he  looked  up  to  that  source 
of  strength.  He  did  sin,  and  the  Spirit  retired ;  and,  the  tide  of  sin  once 
turned  in,  the  mound  of  resistance  being  removed,  it  overflowed  his  whole 
nature.  In  this  state  of  alienation  from  God  men  are  born,  with  all 
these  tendencies  to  evil,  because  the  only  controlling  and  sanctifying 

Vol.  II.  6 


82  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

power,  the  presence  of  the  Spirit,  is  wanting,  and  is  now  given  to  man, 
not  as  when  first  brought  into  being,  as  a  creature ;  but  is  secured  to 
him  by  the  mercy  and  grace  of  a  new  and  different  dispensation,  under 
which  the  Spirit  is  administered  in  different  degrees,  times,  and  modes, 
according  to  the  wisdom  of  God,  never  on  the  ground  of  our  being 
creatures,  but  as  redeemed  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  him  who  be- 
came a  curse  for  us. 

A  question,  as  to  the  transmission  of  this  corruption  of  nature  from 
parents  to  children,  has  been  debated  among  those  who,  nevertheless, 
admit  the  fact ;  some  contending  that  the  soul  is  ex  traduce ;  others, 
that  it  is  by  immediate  creation.  It  is  certain  that,  as  to  the  metaphysical 
part  of  this  question,  we  can  come  to  no  satisfactory  conclusion.  The 
Scriptures,  however,  appear  to  be  more  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  tra- 
duction.  "  Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness."  "  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  which  refers  certainly  to  the  soul  as  well  as  to 
the  body.  The  fact  also  of  certain  dispositions  and  eminent  faculties  of 
the  mind  being  often  found  in  families  appears  to  favour  this  notion  ; 
though  it  may  be  plausibly  said,  that,  as  the  mind  operates  by  bodily 
instruments,  there  may  be  a  family  constitution  of  the  body,  as  there  is 
of  likeness,  which  may  be  more  favourable  to  the  excitement  and  exer- 
tion of  certain  faculties  than  others. 

The  usual  argument  against  this  traduction  of  the  human  spirit  is, 
that  the  doctrine  of  its  generation  tends  to  materialism.  But  this  arises 
from  a  mistaken  view  of  that  in  which  the  procreation  of  a  human  being 
lies,  which  does  not  consist  in  the  production  out  of  nothing  of  either 
of  the  parts  of  which  the  compounded  being,  man,  is  constituted,  but  in 
the  uniting  them  substantially  with  one  another.  The  matter  of  the  body 
is  not,  then,  first  made,  but  disposed,  nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  the  soul 
is  by  that  act  first  produced.  That  belongs  to  a  higher  power ;  and  then 
the  only  question  is,  whether  all  souls  were  created  in  Adam,  and  are 
transmitted  by  a  law  peculiar  to  themselves,  which  is  always  under  the 
control  of  the  will  of  that  same  watchful  Providence,  of  whose  constant 
agency  in  the  production  and  ordering  of  the  kinds,  sexes,  and  circum- 
stances of  the  animal  creation,  we  have  abundant  proof;  or  whether 
they  are  immediately  created.  The  usual  objection  to  the  last  notion 
is,  that  God  cannot  create  an  evil  nature ;  but  if  our  corruption  is  the 
result  of  privation,  not  of  positive  infection,  the  notion  of  the  immediate 
creation  of  the  soul  is  cleared  of  a  great  difficulty,  though  it  is  not  wholly 
disentangled.  But  the  tenet  of  the  soul's  descent  appears  to  have  most 
countenance  from  the  language  of  Scripture,  and  it  is  no  small  con- 
firmation  of  it,  that  when  God  designed  to  incarnate  his  own  Son,  he 
stepped  out  of  the  ordinary  course,  and  formed  a  sinless  human  nature 
immediately  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  philosophical  diffi- 
culties which  have  presented  themselves  to  this  opinion  appear  chiefly 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  83 

to  have  arisen  from  supposing  that  consciousness  is  an  essential  attribute 
of  spirit ;  and  that  the  soul  is  naturally  immortal ;  the  former  of  which 
cannot  be  proved,  while  the  latter  is  contradicted  by  Scripture,  which 
makes  our  immortality  a  gift  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  giver.  Other 
difficulties  have  arisen  for  want  of  considering  the  constant  agency  of 
God  in  regulating  the  production  of  all  things,  and  of  rational  account- 
able creatures  especially. 

But  whichever  of  these  views  is  adopted,  the  soul  and  the  body  are 
united  before  birth,  and  man  is  born  under  that  curse  of  the  law  which 
has  deprived  fallen  human  nature  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  can  only  be 
restored  by  Christ.  It  is,  therefore,  well  and  forcibly  said  by  Calvin, — 
"  to  enable  us  to  understand  this  subject,  (man's  birth  in  sin,)  we  have 
no  need  to  enter  on  that  tedious  dispute,  with  which  the  fathers  were 
not  a  little  perplexed,  whether  the  soul  proceeds  by  derivation.  We 
ought  to  be  satisfied  with  this,  that  the  Lord  deposited  with  Adam 
the  endowments  he  chose  to  confer  upon  human  nature  ;  and,  therefore, 
that  when  he  lost  the  favours  he  had  received,  he  lost  them  not  only  for 
himself,  but  for  us  all.  Who  will  be  soUcitous  about  a  transmission  of 
the  soul,  when  he  hears,  that  Adam  received  the  ornaments  that  he  lost 
no  less  for  us  than  for  himself?  that  they  were  given,  not  to  one  man 
only,  but  to  the  whole  human  nature  ?  There  is  nothing  absurd,  there- 
fore, if,  in  consequence  of  his  being  spoiled  of  his  dignities,  that  nature 
be  now  destitute  and  poor."  [Institutes.) 

From  this  view  of  the  total  alienation  of  the  nature  of  man  from  God, 
it  does  not,  however,  follow  that  there  should  be  nothing  virtuous  and 
praiseworthy  among  men,  until,  in  the  proper  sense,  they  become  the 
subjects  of  the  regeneration  insisted  upon  in  the  Gospel  as  necessary  to 
quafify  men  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  From  the  virtues  which  have 
existed  among  heathens,  and  from  men  being  called  upon  to  repent  and 
believe  the  Gospel,  it  has  been  argued  that  human  nature  is  not  so  en- 
tirely corrupt  and  disabled  as  the  above  representation  would  suppose ; 
and,  indeed,  on  the  Calvinistic  theory,  which  denies  that  all  men  are 
interested  in  the  benefits  procured  by  the  death  of  Christ,  it  would  be 
extremely  difficult  for  any  to  meet  this  objection,  and  to  maintain  their 
own  views  of  the  corruption  of  man  with  consistency.  On  the  contrary 
theory  of  God's  universal  love  nothing  is  more  easy ;  because,  in  con- 
sequence  of  the  atonement  offered  for  all,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  adminis- 
tered  to  all,  and  to  his  secret  operations  all  that  is  really  spiritual  and 
good,  in  its  frijiciple,  is  to  be  ascribed. 

Independent  of  this  influence,  indeed,  it  may  be  conceived  that  there 

may  be  much  restraint  of  evil,  and  many  acts  of  external  goodness  in 

the  world,  without  at  all  impugning  the  doctrine  of  an  entire  estrange- 

ment  of  the  heart  from  God,  and  a  moral  death  in  trespasses  and  sins. 

1.  The  understanding  of  man  is,  by  its  nature,  adapted  to  perceive 

2 


84  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  evidence  of  demonstrated  truth,  and  has  no  means  of  avoiding  the 
conviction  but  by  turning  away  the  attention. — Wherever,  then,  revela- 
tions of  the  Divine  law,  or  traditional  remembrances  of  it  are  found, 
notions  of  right  and  wrong  have  been  and  must  be  found  also. 

2.  So  much  of  what  is  right  and  wrong  is  connected  with  the  inte- 
rests  of  men,  that  they  have  been  led  publicly  to  approve  what  is  right 
in  all  instances,  in  all  instances  where  it  is  obviously  beneficial  to  soci- 
ety, and  to  disapprove  of  wrong.  They  do  this  by  public  laws,  by  their 
writings,  and  by  their  censures  of  offenders.  A  moral  standard  of  judg- 
ing of  vice  and  virtue  has,  therefore,  been  found  every  where,  though 
varying  in  degree  ;  which  men  have  generally  honestly  applied  to  others 
in  passing  a  judgment  on  their  characters,  though  they  have  not  used 
the  same  fidelity  to  themselves.  More  or  less,  therefore,  the  practice 
of  what  is  condemned  as  vice  or  approved  as  virtue  is  shameful  or  cre- 
ditable, and  the  interests  and  reputation  of  men  require  that  they  obtain 
what  is  called  a  character,  and  preserve  it ;  a  circumstance  which  often 
serves  to  restrain  vicious  practices,  and  to  produce  a  negative  virtue,  or 
an  affectation  of  real  and  active  virtue. 

3.  Though  the  seeds  of  sin  lie  hid  in  the  heart  of  all,  yet  their  full 
development  and  manifestation  in  action  can  only  take  place  slowly  and 
by  the  operation  of  exciting  circumstances.  Much  of  the  evil  in  the 
world,  also,  hes  in  the  irregularities  of  those  natural  appetites  and  the 
excesses  of  those  passions  which  are  not  in  themselves  evil,  and  such 
corrupt  habits  cannot  be  formed  until  after  opportunities  of  frequent 
indulgence  have  been  given.  This  will  account  for  the  comparative 
innocence  of  infancy,  of  youth,  and  of  those  around  whom  many  guards 
have  been  thrown  by  providential  arrangement. 

4.  We  may  notice,  also,  that  it  is  not  possible,  were  all  men  equally 
constituted  as  to  their  moral  nature,  that  all  sins  should  show  themselves 
in  all  men  ;  and  that  although  there  is  nothing  in  the  proper  sense,  good 
in  any,  that  society  should  present  an  unvar5dng  mass  of  corruption, 
which  some  appear  to  think  a  necessary  corollary  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  universal  corruption  of  human  nature.  Avarice,  the  strong  desire 
of  getting  and  of  hoarding  wealth,  necessarily  restrains  from  expensive 
vices.  An  obsequious  and  a  tyrannical  temper  cannot  co-exist  in  the 
same  circumstances,  and  yet,  in  other  circumstances,  the  obsequious 
man  is  often  found  to  be  tyrannical,  and  the  latter  obsequious.  Certain 
events  excite  a  latent  passion,  such  as  ambition,  and  it  becomes  a  mas- 
ter passion,  to  which  all  others  are  subordinated,  and  even  vicious  dis- 
positions and  habits  controlled  in  order  to  success :  just  on  the  same 
principle  that  the  ancient  athletae  (5)  and  our  modern  prize- fighter* 

(5)  "  Qui  studet  optatam  cursu  contingere  raetara, 
Multa  tulit  fecitque  puer ;  sudavit  et  alsit ; 
Abstinuit  venere,  et  vino."  (Horace,) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  85 

abstain  from  sensual  indulgences,  in  order  to  qualify  themselves  for  the 
combat ;  but  who  show,  by  the  habits  in  which  they  usually  Hve,  that 
particular  vices  are  suspended  only  under  the  influence  of  a  stronger 
passion.  Perhaps,  too,  that  love  of  country,  that  passion  for  its  glory 
and  aggrandizement,  which  produced  so  many  splendid  actions  and  cha- 
racters among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  a  circumstance  which  has  been 
urged  against  the  doctrine  of  man's  depravity,  may  come  under  this  rule. 
That  it  was  not  itself  the  result  of  a  virtuous  state  of  mind  in,  at  least, 
the  majority  of  cases,  is  clear  from  the  frauds,  injustice,  oppressions, 
cruelties,  and  avarice  with  which  it  was  generally  connected. 

5.  It  is  a  fact,  too,  which  cannot  be  denied,  that  men  have  constitu- 
tional evil  tendencies,  some  more  powerfully  bent  to  one  vice,  some  to 
another.  Whether  it  results  from  a  different  constitution  of  the  mind 
that  the  general  corruption  should  act  more  powerfully  in  one  direction 
in  this  man,  and  in  another  in  that ;  or  from  the  temperament  of  the 
body  ;  or  from  some  law  impressed  by  God  upon  a  sinful  nature,  (which 
it  involves  no  difficulty  to  admit,  inasmuch  as  society  could  scarcely 
have  existed  without  that  balance  of  evils  and  that  check  of  one  vice 
upon  another  which  this  circumstance  produces,) — such  is  the  fact ;  and 
it  gives  a  reason  for  the  existence  of  much  negative  virtue  in  society. 

From  all  these  causes,  appearances  of  good  among  unregenerate  men 
will  present  themselves,  without  affording  any  ground  to  deduct  any  thing 
from  those  statements  as  to  man's  fallen  state  which  have  been  just 
made  ;  but  these  negative  virtues,  and  these  imitations  of  actions  really 
good  from  interest,  ambition,  or  honour,  have  no  foundation  in  the  fear 
of  God,  in  a  love  to  virtue  as  such,  in  a  right  will,  or  in  spiritual  affec- 
tions ;  and  they  afford,  therefore,  no  evidence  of  spiritual  life,  or,  in 
other  words,  of  religious  principle.  To  other  vices,  to  which  there  is 
any  temptation,  and  to  those  now  avoided,  whenever  the  temptation 
comes,  men  uniformly  yield  ;  and  this  shows,  that  though  the  common 
corruption  varies  its  aspects,  it  is,  nevertheless,  unrelieved  by  a  real  vir- 
tuous principle  in  any,  so  far  as  they  are  left  to  themselves. 

But  virtues  grounded  on  principle,  though  an  imperfect  one,  and  there- 
fore neither  negative  nor  simulated,  may  also  be  found  among  the  unre- 
generate, and  have  existed,  doubtless,  in  all  ages.  These,  however,  are 
not  from  man,  but  from  God,  whose  Holy  Spirit  has  been  vouchsafed  to 
"  the  world,'"  through  the  atonement.  This  great  truth  has  often  been 
lost  sight  of  in  this  controversy.  Some  Calvinists  seem  to  acknowledge 
it  substantially,  under  the  name  of  "common  grace;"  others  choose 
rather  to  refer  all  appearances  of  virtue  to  nature,  and  thus,  by  attempt- 
ing to  avoid  the  doctrine  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  all  mankind,  attribute 
to  nature  what  is  inconsistent  with  their  opinion  of  its  entire  corruption. 
But  there  is,  doubtless,  to  be  sometimes  found  in  men  not  yet  regene- 
rate in  the  Scripture  sense,  not  even  decided  in  their  choice,  something 

2 


86  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  moral  excellence,  which  cannot  be  referred  to  any  of  the  causes  above 
adduced ;  and  of  a  much  higher  character  than  is  to  be  attributed  to  a 
nature  which,  when  left  to  itself,  is  wholly  destitute  of  spiritual  life. 
Compunction  for  sin,  strong  desires  to  be  freed  from  its  tyranny,  such  a 
fear  of  God  as  preserves  them  from  many  evils,  charity,  kindness,  good 
neighbourhood,  general  respect  for  goodness  and  good  men,  a  lofty  sense 
of  honour  and  justice,  and,  indeed,  as  the  very  command  issued  to  them 
to  repent  and  believe  the  Gospel  in  order  to  their  salvation  implies,  a 
power  of  consideration,  prayer,  and  turning  to  God,  so  as  to  commence 
that  course  which,  persevered  in,  would  lead  on  to  forgiveness  and  rege- 
neration.    To  say  that  all  these  are  to  be  attributed  to  mere  nature,  is 
to  surrender  the  argument  to  the  semi-Pelagian,  who  contends  that  these 
are  proofs  that  man  is  not  wholly  degenerate.     They  are  to  be  attributed 
to  the  controUing  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  to  his  incipient  work- 
ings  in  the  hearts  of  men  ;  to  the  warfare  which  he  there  maintains,  and 
which  has  sometimes  a  partial  victory,  before  the  final  triumph  comes,  or 
when,  through  the  fault  of  man,  through  "  resisting,"  "  grieving,"  "  vex- 
ing," "  quenching"  that  Holy  Spirit,  that  final  triumph  may  never  come. 
It  is  thus  that  one  part  of  Scripture  is  reconciled  to  another,  and  both  to 
fact ;  the  declaration  of  man's  total  corruption,  with  the  presumption  of 
his  power  to  return  to  God,  to  repent,  to  break  off  his  sins,  which  all  the 
commands  and  invitations  to  him  from  the  Gospel  imply  :  and  thus  it  is 
that  we  understand  how,  especially  in  Christian  countries,  where  the 
Spirit  is  more  largely  effused,  there  is  so  much  more  general  virtue  than 
in  others ;  and  in  those  circles  especially,  in  which  Christian  education, 
and  the  prayers  of  the  pious,  and  the  power  of  example  are  appUed  and 
exhibited. 

The  Scriptural  proof  that  the  Spirit  is  given  to  "  the  world'^  is  obvious 
and  decisive.  We  have  seen  that  the  curse  of  the  law  implied  a  denial 
of  the  Spirit ;  the  removal  of  that  curse  implies,  therefore,  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  benefit  must  be  as  large  and  extensive  as  the  atonement. 
Hence  we  find  the  Spirit's  operations  spoken  of,  not  only  as  to  the  good, 
but  the  wicked,  in  all  the  three  dispensations.  In  the  patriarchal,  "  the 
Spirit  strove  with  men ;"  with  the  antediluvian  race,  before  and  all  the 
time  the  ark  was  preparing.  The  Jews  in  the  wilderness  are  said  to 
have  "  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit ;"  Christ  promises  to  send  the  Spirit  to 
convince  the  world  of  sin  ;  and  the  book  of  God's  Revelations  concludes 
by  representing  the  Spirit  as  well  as  the  Bride,  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well 
as  the  Church  in  her  ordinances,  inviting  all  to  come  and  take  of  the 
water  of  life  freely.  All  this  is  the  fruit  of  our  redemption  and  the  new 
relation  in  which  man  is  placed  to  God ;  as  a  sinner,  it  is  true,  still ; 
but  a  sinner  for  whom  atonement  has  been  made,  and  who  is  to  be  wooed 
and  won  to  an  acceptance  of  the  heavenly  mercy.  Christ  having  been 
made  a  curse  for  us,  the  curse  of  the  law  no  longer  shuts  out  that  Spirit 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  87 

from  us ;  nor  can  justice  exclaim  against  this  going  forth  of  the  Spirit, 
as  it  has  been  beautifully  expressed,  "  to  make  gentle  trials  upon  the  spi- 
rits of  men  ;"  to  inject  some  beams  of  light,  to  inspire  contrite  emotions, 
which,  if  they  comply  with,  may  lead  on  to  those  more  powerful  and 
effectual.  If,  however,  they  rebel  against  them,  and  oppose  their  sen- 
sual imaginations  and  desires  to  the  secret  promptings  of  God's  Spirit, 
they  ultimately  provoke  him  to  withdraw  his  aid,  and  they  relapse  into 
a  state  more  guilty  and  dangerous.  Again  and  again  they  ai'e  visited 
in  various  ways,  in  honour  of  the  Redeemer's  atonement,  and  for  the 
manifestation  of  the  long  suffering  of  God.  In  some  the  issue  is  life ; 
in  others,  an  aggravated  death ;  but  in  most  cases  this  struggle,  this 
"  striving  with  man,"  this  debating  with  him,  this  standing  between  him 
and  death,  cannot  fail  to  correct  and  prevent  much  evil,  to  bring  into 
existence  some  "  goodness,"  though  it  may  be  as  the  morning  cloud  and 
the  early  dew,  and  to  produce  civil  and  social  virtues,  none  of  which 
however,  are  to  be  placed  to  the  account  of  nature,  nor  used  to  soften 
our  views  of  its  entire  alienation  from  God  ;  but  are  to  be  acknowledged 
as  magnifying  that  grace  which  regards  the  whole  of  the  sinning  race 
with  compassion,  and  is  ever  employed  in  seeking  and  saving  that  which 
is  lost. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

Redemption. — Principles  of  God's  Moral  Government. 

We  have  established  it  as  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture,  that  all 
men  are  born  with  a  corrupted  nature,  that  from  this  nature  rebellion 
against  the  Divine  authority  universally  flows,  and  that,  in  conse- 
quence, the  whole  world  is,  as  St.  Paul  forcibly  expresses  it,  "  guilty 
before  God." 

Before  any  issue  proceeded  from  the  first  pair,  they  were  restored  to 
the  Divine  favour.  Had  no  method  of  forgiveness  and  restoration 
been  established  with  respect  to  human  offenders,  the  penalty  of  death 
must  have  been  forthwith  executed  upon  them,  there  being  no  doubt  of 
the  fact  of  their  delinquency,  and  no  reason,  in  that  case,  for  delaying 
their  punishment ;  and  with,  and  in  them,  the  human  race  must  have 
utterly  perished.  The  covenant  of  pardon  and  salvation  which  was 
made  with  Adam,  did  not,  however,  terminate  upon  him ;  but  compre- 
hended all  his  race.  This  is  a  point  made  indubitable  by  those  pas- 
sages  we  have  already  quoted  from  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  which  he 
contrasts  the  injury  which  the  human  race  have  received  from  the 
disobedience  of  Adam,  with  the  benefit  brought  to  them  by  the  obedience 
of  Jesus  Christ.  "  For  if,  through  the  offence  of  one,  many  be  dead, 
much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gifl  by  grace,  which  is  by  one 

2 


88  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many."  «  Therefore,  as  by 
the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation  ;  even 
so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justi- 
fication of  life." 

Since,  then,  the  penalty  of  death  was  not  immediately  executed  in  all 
its  extent  upon  the  first  sinning  pair,  and  is  not  immediately  executed 
upon  their  sinning  descendants ;  since  they  were  actually  restored  to 
the  Divine  favour,  and  the  same  blessing  is  offered  to  us,  our  inquiries 
must  next  be  directed  to  the  nature  and  reason  of  that  change  in  the 
conduct  of  the  Divine  Being,  in  which  he  lays  aside,  in  so  great  a  mea- 
sure,  the  sternness  and  inflexibility  of  his  office  of  Judge,  and  becomes 
the  dispenser  of  grace  and  favour  to  the  guilty  themselves. 

The  existence  of  a  Divine  law,  obligatory  upon  man,  is  not  doubted 
by  any  who  admit  the  existence  and  government  of  God.  We 
have  already  seen  its  requirements,  its  extent,  and  its  sanctions,  and 
have  proved  that  its  penalty  consists  not  merely  of  severe  sufferings 
in  this  life ;  but  in  death,  that  is,  the  separation  of  the  body  and  the 
soul, — the  former  being  left  under  the  power  of  corruption,  the  other 
being  separated  from  God,  and  made  liable  to  punishment  in  another 
state  of  being. 

It  is  important  to  keep  in  view  the  fact  of  the  extent  and  severity  of 
the  punishment  denounced  against  all  transgressions  of  the  law  of  God, 
because  this  is  illustrative  of  the  character  of  God  ;  both  with  reference 
to  his  essential  holiness  and  to  his  proceedings  as  Governor  of  the 
world.  The  miseries  connected  with  sin,  as  consequences  affecting  the 
transgressor  himself  and  society,  and  the  afflictions,  personal  and 
national,  which  are  the  results  of  Divine  visitation^  must  all  be  regarded 
as  punitive.  Corrective  effects  may  be  secondarily  connected  with 
them,  but  primarily,  they  must  all  be  punitive.  It  would  be  abhorrent 
to  all  our  notions  of  the  Divine  character,  to  suppose  perfectly  innocent 
beings  subject  to  such  miseries ;  and  they  are  only,  therefore,  to  be 
accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  their  being  the  results  of  a  supreme 
judicial  administration,  which  bears  a  strict,  and  often  a  very  terrible 
character.  If,  to  the  sufferings  and  death  which  result  from  offences 
in  the  present  life,  we  add  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  we 
shall  be  the  more  impressed  with  the  depth  and  breadth  of  that  impress 
of  justice  which  marks  the  character  and  the  government  of  God.  Say 
that  this  punishment  is  that  of  loss,  loss  of  the  friendship  and  presence 
of  God,  and  all  the  advantages  which  must  result  from  that  immediate 
intercourse  with  him  which  is  promised  to  righteous  persons  ;  and  that 
this  loss,  which,  confessedly,  must  be  unspeakably  great,  is  eternal; 
even  then  it  must  follow  that  the  turpitude  of  moral  delinquency  is 
regarded  by  our  Divine  Legislator  and  Judge  as  exceedingly  mighty 
and  aggravated.     But  when  to  the  punishment  of  loss  in  a  future  life, 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  89 

we  add  that  of  pain,  which  all  the  representations  of  this  subject  in 
Scripture  certainly  establish,  whether  they  are  held  to  be  expressed  in 
literal  or  in  figurative  phrase  ;  to  which  pain  also  the  all-impressive 
circumstance  of  eternity  is  to  be  added ;  then  is  our  sense  of  the  guilt 
and  deserving  of  human  offence  against  God,  according  to  the  principles 
of  the  Divine  law,  raised,  if  not  to  a  full  conception  of  the  evil  of  sin, 
(for  as  we  cannot  measure  the  punishment,  we  cannot  measure  the  qua- 
Hty  of  the  offence,)  yet  to  a  standard  of  judging,  which  may  well  warrant 
the  Scriptural  exclamation,  "  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  hving  God." 

These  premises  are  unquestionable,  if  any  respect  is  paid  to  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  and,  indeed,  God's  severity  against  moral  offence 
is  manifested,  as  to  this  present  life,  by  facts  of  universal  observation  and 
uninterrupted  history,  quite  independent  of  Scripture.  But  it  is  to  the 
testimony  of  God  himself,  in  his  own  word,  that  we  must  resort  for  the 
most  important  illustrations  of  the  Divine  character,  and  especially  of  its 
HOLINESS  and  justice. 

With  respect  to  the  former,  they  show  us  that  holiness  in  God 
is  more  than  a  mere  absence  of  moral  evil ;  more  than  approval,  and 
even  delight  in  moral  goodness ;  more  than  simple  aversion  and  dis- 
pleasure  at  what  is  contrary  to  it.  They  prove,  that  the  holiness  of 
God  is  so  intense,  that  whatever  is  opposed  to  it  is  the  object  of  an 
active  displacence,  of  hatred,  of  opposition,  and  resistance,  and  that 
this  sentiment  is  inflexible  and  eternal.  Agreeably  to  this,  God  is,  in 
Scripture,  said  to  be  "of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity" — and 
we  are  taught  that  "  the  thoughts  of  the  wicked  are  an  abomination" 
to  him. 

With  respect  to  the  justice  of  God,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should 
enter  into  a  larger  view,  since  a  right  conception*  of  that  attribute 
of  the  Divine  nature  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
atonement. 

Justice  is  usually  considered  as  universal  or  particular.  Universal 
justice,  or  righteousness,  includes  holiness,  and,  indeed,  comprehends 
all  the  moral  attributes  of  God,  all  the  Divine  virtues  of  every  kind. — 
Particular  justice  is  either  commutative,  which  respects  equals ;  or  di$. 
irihutive,  which  is  the  dispensing  of  rewards  and  punishments,  and  is 
exercised  only  by  governors.  It  is  the  justice  of  God  in  this  last  view, 
but  still  in  connection  with  universal  justice,  with  which  we  are  now 
concerned ;  that  rectoral  sovereign  justice  by  which  he  maintains  his 
own  rights,  and  the  rights  of  others,  and  gives  to  every  one  his  due 
according  to  that  legal  constitution  which  he  has  himself  established. 
And  as  this  legal  constitution  under  which  he  has  placed  his  creatures, 
is  the  result  of  universal  justice  or  righteousness,  the  holiness,  goodness, 
truth,  and  wisdom  of  God  united ;  so  his  distributive  justice,  or  his 

2 


90  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

respect  to  the  laws  which  he  has  himself  estabhshed,  is,  in  every 
respect  and  degree,  faultless  and  perfect.  In  this  legal  constitution,  no 
rights  are  mistaken  or  misstated  ;  and  nothing  is  enjoined  or  prohibited, 
nothing  promised  or  threatened  but  what  is  exactly  conformable  to  the 
universal  righteousness  or  absolute  moral  perfection  of  God.  This  is 
the  constant  doctrine  of  Scripture ;  this  the  uniform  praise  bestowed 
upon  the  Divine  law,  that  it  is,  in  every  respect,  conformable  to  abstract 
truth,  purity,  holiness,  and  justice,  and  is  itself  truth,  purity,  holiness, 
and  justice.  "  The  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  hight,  rejoicing  the  heart ; 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes ;  the  fear 
of  the  Lord  is  clean,  enduring  for  ever ;  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are 
TRUE  and  RIGHTEOUS  altogether,"  Psalm  xix,  8,  9.  "  The  law  is  holy, 
and  the  commandment  holy,  just,  and  good,"  Rom.  vii,  12. 

Of  the  strictness  and  severity  of  the  punitive  justice  of  God,  the  sen- 
tence of  death,  which  we  have  already  seen  to  be  pronounced  upon 
"  SIN,"  £ind,  therefore,  upon  all  transgressions  of  God's  law,  for  "  sin  is 
the  transgression  of  the  law,"  is  sufficient  evidence ;  and  the  actual 
infliction  of  death,  as  to  the  body,  is  the  standing  proof  to  the  world,  that 
the  threatening  is  not  a  dead  letter,  and  that  in  the  Divine  administra- 
tion continual  and  strict  regard  is  had  to  the  claims  and  dispensations 
of  distributive  justice.  On  the  other  hand,  as  this  distributive  justice 
emanates  from  the  entire  holiness  and  moral  rectitude  of  the  Divine 
nature,  it  is  established,  by  this  circumstance,  that  the  severity  does  not 
go  beyond  the  equity  of  the  case ;  and  that,  to  the  full  extent  of  that 
punishment  which  may  be  inflicted  in  another  hfe,  and  which  is, 
therefore,  eternal,  there  is  nothing  which  is  contrary  to  the  full  and 
complete  moral  perfection  of  God,  to  his  goodness,  holiness,  truth,  and 
justice  united ;  but  that  it  is  fully  agreeable  to  them  all,  and  is, 
indeed,  the  result  of  the  perfect  existence  of  such  attributes  in  the 
Divine  nature. 

The  Scriptures,  therefore,  are  frequently  exceedingly  emphatic  in 
ascribing  a  perfect  righteousness  to  the  judicial  and  penal  visitations  of 
sinful  individuals  and  nations ;  and  that  not  merely  with  reference  to 
such  visitations  being  conformable  to  the  penalties  threatened  in  the 
Divine  law  itself,  in  which  case  the  righteousness  would  consist  in  their 
not  exceeding  the  penalty  threatened ;  but,  more  abstractedly  consi- 
dered, in  their  very  nature,  and  with  reference  to  even  the  highest 
standard  of  righteousness  and  holiness.  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  the 
whole  earth  do  right  ?"  "  It  is  a  righteous  thing  with  God  to 
RECOMPENSE  tribulation  to  them  that  trouble  you,"  2  Thess.  i,  6.  "  The 
day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God," 
Rom.  ii,  5.  "  Even  so.  Lord  God  Almighty,  true  and  righteous  are 
thy  judgments,"  Rev.  xvi,  7. 

The  legal  constitution  then,  which  we  are  under,  secures  life  to  the 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  91 

obedient,  but  dooms  offenders  to  die.  It  is  the  office  of  distributive 
justice  to  execute  this  penaUy,  as  well  as  to  bestow  the  reward  of  obe- 
dience ;  and  the  appointment  of  the  penalty  and  the  execution  of  it,  are 
both  the  results  of  the  essential  rectitude  of  God. 

This  is  most  obvious  as  the  doctrine  of  Scripture ;  but  have  we  any 
means  of  discerning  the  connection  between  the  essential  justice  or  uni- 
versal righteousness  of  God,  and  such  a  constitution  of  law  and  govern- 
ment as,  in  the  first  instance,  ordains  so  severe  a  penalty  against  sin  as 
death,  maintains  it  unchangeably  through  all  the  generations  of  time, 
and  carries  it  into  eternity  ?  This  is  an  important  question,  not  with- 
out its  difficulties,  and  yet  it  may  not  altogether  elude  our  inquiries. 
Whether  we  succeed  or  not  in  discovering  this  connection,  the  fact  re- 
mains the  same,  firmly  grounded  on  the  most  explicit  testimony  of  God 
in  his  own  word.     It  is,  however,  an  inquiry  worthy  our  intention. 

The  creation  of  beings  capable  of  choice,  and  endowed  with  affec- 
tions, seems  necessarily  to  have  involved  the  possibihty  of  volitions  and 
acts  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Creator,  and,  consequently,  it  involved 
a  liability  to  misery.  To  prevent  this,  both  justice  and  benevolence 
were  concerned.  Justice,  seeing  that  the  Creator  has  an  absolute 
right  to  the  entire  obedience  of  the  creatures  he  has  made,  and  all  op- 
position to  that  will  is  the  violation  of  a  right,  and  the  practice  of  a 
wrong  which  justice  is  bound  to  prevent.  Benevolence,  because  this 
opposition  to  the  will  of  God,  which  will  is  the  natural  law  of  a  creature, 
must  be  the  source  of  misery  to  the  offender,  and  that  independent  of  direct 
punishment.  This  is  manifest.  Some  end  was  proposed  in  creation, 
or  it  could  not  have  been  a  work  of  wisdom  ;  the  felicity  of  the  creature 
must  also  have  been  proposed  as  an  end,  either  principal  or  subordinate, 
or  creation  could  not  have  been  a  display  of  goodness  ;  a  capacity  and 
power  of  holiness  must  also  have  been  imparted  to  moral  agents,  or,  in 
a  moral  nature,  every  act  would  have  been  morally  corrupt,  and,  there- 
fore, the  creature  must  have  been  constantly  displeasing  to  the  holy 
God,  and  not  "  very  good,"  as  all  his  works,  including  man,  were  pro- 
nounced to  be  at  the  beginning.  The  end  proposed  in  the  forming  of 
intelligent  creatures  could  only  be  answered  by  their  continual  compli- 
ance with  the  will  of  God.  This  implied  both  the  power  and  the  exer- 
cise of  holiness,  and  with  that  the  felicity  of  the  creature  was  necessarily 
connected.  It  was  adapted  to  a  certain  end,  and  in  attaining  that  its 
happiness  was  secured.  To  be  disobedient  was  to  set  itself  in  opposi- 
tion to  God,  to  exist  and  act  for  ends  contrary  to  the  wisdom  and  holi- 
ness of  God,  and  was,  therefore,  to  frustrate  his  benevolent  intentions 
also  as  to  its  happiness,  and  to  become  miserable  from  its  very  hostility 
to  God,  and  the  disorder  arising  from  the  misapplication  of  the  powers 
with  which  it  had  been  endowed.  To  prevent  all  these  evils,  and  to 
secure  the  purposes  for  which  creative  power  was  exerted,  were  the 

2 


92  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ends,  therefore,  of  that  administration  which  arose  out  of  the  existence 
of  moral  agents.  This  rule  takes  date  from  their  earhest  being.  No 
sooner  did  they  exist,  than  a  Divine  government  was  estabhshed  over 
them ;  and  to  the  ends  just  mentioned  all  its  acts  must  have  been 
directed. 

The  first  act  was  the  publication  of  the  will  or  law  of  God,  for  where 
there  is  no  declared  law  there  is  no  rational  government.  The  second 
act  was  to  give  motives  to  obedience,  for  to  creatures  liable  to  evil, 
though  created  good,  these  were  necessary ;  but  as  they  were  made 
free,  and  designed  to  yield  a  willing  service,  more  than  motives,  that  is 
rational  inducements,  operating  through  the  judgment  and  affections, 
could  not  be  applied  to  induce  obedience  ; — external  force  or  necessary 
impulse  could  have  no  place  in  the  government  of  such  creatures.  The 
promise  of  the  continuance  of  a  happy  and  still  improving  life  compre- 
hended  one  class  of  motives  to  obedience ;  the  real  justice  of  yielding 
obedience  another.  But  was  no  motive  arising  from  fear  also  to  be 
applied  ?  There  was  much  to  be  feared  from  the  very  nature  of  things  ; 
from  the  misery  which,  in  the  way  of  natural  and  necessary  consequence 
alone,  must  follow  from  opposition  to  the  will  of  God,  and  the  wilful 
corrupting  of  a  nature  created  upright.  Now,  since  this  was  what  the 
creature  was  liable  to,  the  administration  of  the  Divine  government 
would  have  been  obviously  defective,  had  this  been  concealed  by  Him, 
who  had  himself  established  that  natural  order,  by  which  disobedience 
to  the  will  of  God,  in  a  moral  being,  should  be  followed  by  certain 
misery,  and  he  would  apparently  have  been  chargeable  with  not  having 
used  every  means,  consistent  with  free  agency,  to  prevent  so  fatal  a  re- 
sult.    So  far  we  conceive  that  this  is  indubitable. 

But  now  let  us  suppose  that  nothing  less  than  a  positive  penalty,  of 
the  most  tremendous  kind,  could  be  a  sufficient  motive  to  deter  these 
free  and  rational  beings  from  transgression  ;  that,  even  that  threatened 
penalty  itself,  though  the  greatest  possible  evil,  would  not,  in  all  cases, 
be  sufficient ;  but  that,  in  none  a  less  powerful  motive  would  prove  suffi- 
ciently  cautionary  ;  then,  in  such  circumstances,  the  moral  perfection 
of  the  Divine  nature,  his  universal  rectitude  and  benevolence,  would 
undoubtedly  require  the  ordination  of  that  penalty,  however  tremendous. 
The  case  might  be  a  choice  between  the  universal  disobedience  of  all, 
and  their  being  left  to  the  miseries  which  follow  from  sin  by  natural 
consequence  ;  and  the  preservation  of  some,  perhaps  the  majority,  though 
the  guilty  remainder  should  not  only  be  punished  by  the  misery  which 
is  the  natural  result  of  vice ;  but,  in  addition,  should  be  subject  to  that 
positive  penalty  of  death,  which,  as  to  the  soul,  runs  on  with  immortahty, 
and  is,  therefore,  eternal. 

On  such  an  alternative  as  this,  which  may  surely  be  conceived  pos. 
sible,  and  which  contradicts  no  attribute  of  God,  does  the  essential  jus- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  93 

tice  or  rectitude  of  the  Divine  nature  demand  that  such  a  penalty  should 
be  adopted  ?  The  affirmative  of  this  question  will  be  supported,  I  think, 
by  the  following  considerations  : — 

1.  The  hoUness  of  God,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  so  intense  as  to 
abhor  and  detest  every  kind  and  degree  of  moral  evil,  would,  from  its 
very  nature,  its  active  and  irreconcilable  opposition  to  evil,  determine  to 
the  adoption  of  the  most  effectual  means  of  preventing  its  introduction 
among  the  rational  beings  which  should  be  created,  and,  when  intro- 
duced, of  checking  and  limiting  its  progress.  So  that,  in  proportion  to 
that  aversion,  must  be  his  propension  to  adopt  the  most  effectual  means 
to  deter  his  creatures  from  it ;  and  if  nothing  less  than  such  a  penalty 
could  be  effectual,  even  in  the  majority  of  cases,  then  it  resulted  neces- 
sarily, from  the  holiness  of  God,  that  the  penalty  of  death,  in  all  its 
Scriptural  extent,  should  be  attached  to  transgression. 

2.  The  consideration  of  the  essential  justice  or  rectitude  of  God,  that 
principle  which  leads  to  an  unchangeable  respect  to  what  is  right  and 
equitably  ^^,  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  God  has  his  own  rights  as 
maker,  and,  therefore,  proprietor  and  Lord  of  all  creatures,  and  it  is  fit 
they  should  be  maintained  and  vindicated.  To  surrender  them,  or  un- 
steadily  and  uncertainly  to  assert  them,  would  be  an  encouragement  to 
evil,  and  his  ver}^  regard  to  mere  abstract  right  and  moral  fitness  must, 
therefore,  be  considered  as  determining  God  to  a  steady  and  unchange- 
able assertion  of  his  rights,  since  their  surrender  could  present  no  end 
worthy  of  his  character,  or  consistent  with  his  holiness.  But  wherever 
more  created  beings  exist  than  one,  the  rights  of  others  also  come  into 
consideration ;  both  the  indirect  right  of  a  dependent  creature  under 
government,  to  be  protected,  as  far  as  may  be,  from  the  contagion  of 
bad  example,  and  the  more  direct  right  of  protection  from  those  injuries 
which  many  sins  do,  in  their  own  nature,  imply.  For  no  man  can  be 
ambitious,  unjust,  &;c,  without  inflicting  injury  upon  others.  The  essen- 
tial  rectitude  of  God  was  concerned,  therefore,  to  regard  these  rights  in 
the  creatures  dependent  upon  him,  and  to  adopt  such  a  legal  constitu- 
tion and  mode  of  government,  under  which  to  place  them,  as  should 
respect  the  maintenance  of  his  own  rights  of  sovereignty,  and  the  right- 
eous claims  which  his  creatures,  that  is  the  general  society  of  created 
beings,  had  upon  him.  All  this,  it  may  be  said,  only  proves  that  the 
essential  rectitude  of  God  required  that  such  a  government  should  be 
adopted  as  should  inflict  some  marked  penalty  on  offences.  It  proves 
this,  but  it  proves  more,  namely,  that  the  Divine  rectitude  required 
that  the  most  effectual  means  should  be  adopted  to  uphold  these  rights, 
both  as  they  existed  primarily  in  God,  and  secondarily  in  his  creatures. 
This  must  follow :  for  if  there  was  any  obligation  to  uphold  them  at 
all,  it  was  an  obligation  to  uphold  them  in  the  most  effectual  manner, 
since,  if  ineffectual  means  only  had  been  adopted,  when  more  effectual 

2 


94  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES*  [PARf 

means  were  at  hand,  a  wilful  abandonment  of  those  rights  would  have 
been  implied.  If,  therefore,  there  were  no  means  equally  effectual 
for  these  purposes  as  the  issuing  of  a  law,  accompanied  by  a  sanction 
of  death  as  its  penalty,  the  essential  rectitude  of  God  required  its 
adoption. 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Divine  goodness  and  wisdom,  for, 
as  the  former  is  tenderly  disposed  to  preserve  all  sentient  creatures 
from  misery,  so  the  latter  would,  of  necessity,  adopt  the  most  effectual 
means  of  counteracting  moral  evil,  which  is  the  only  source  of  misery 
in  the  creation  of  God. 

The  whole  question,  then,  depends  on  this,  whether  the  penalty  of 
death,  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  be  the  most  effectual  means  of  accom- 
plishing this  end  ;  the  answer  to  which  is,  to  all  who  believe  the  Bible, 
that  as  this  has  actually  been  adopted  as  the  universal  penalty  of  trans- 
gressing the  Divine  law,  (see  chapter  xviii,)  and  as  this  is  confessedly 
the  highest  possible  penalty,  nothing  less  than  this  could  be  effectual  to 
the  purpose  of  government,  and  to  the  manifestation  of  the  Divine  holi- 
ness and  rectitude.  If  it  could,  then  a  superfluous  and  excessive  means 
has  been  adopted,  for  which  no  reason  can  be  given,  and  which  im- 
peaches the  wisdom  of  God,  the  office  of  which  attribute  it  is  to  adapt 
means  to  ends  by  an  exact  adjustment ;  if  not,  then  it  was  required  by 
all  the  moral  attributes  of  the  Divine  nature  to  which  we  have  referred. 

The  next  question  will  be  whether,  since,  as  the  result  of  the  moral 
perfection  of  God,  a  legal  constitution  has  been  established  among 
rational  creatures  which  accords  life  to  obedience,  and  denounces  death 
against  transgression,  the  justice  of  God  obliges  to  the  execution  of  the 
penalty  ;  or  whether  we  have  any  reason  to  conclude,  that  the  rights  of 
God  are  in  many,  or  in  all  cases,  relaxed,  and  punishment  remitted. 
All  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement  strenuously  insist  upon 
this  ;  and  argue,  first,  that  God  has  an  unquestionable  power  of  giving 
up  his  own  rights,  and  pardoning  sin  on  prerogative,  without  any  com- 
pensation whatever ;  second,  that  when  repentance  succeeds  to  offence, 
there  is  a  moral  fitness  in  forgiveness,  since  the  person  offending  pre- 
sents an  altered  and  reformed  character;  and  finally,  that  the  very 
affections  of  goodness  and  mercy,  so  eminent  in  the  Divine  character, 
require  us  to  conclude  that  he  is  always  ready,  upon  repentance,  to  for- 
give the  delinquencies  of  all  his  creatures,  or,  at  most,  to  make  their 
punishments  light  and  temporary. 

In  the  first  of  these  arguments,  it  is  contended  that  God  may  give  up 
his  own  rights.  This  must  mean  either  his  right  to  obedience  from  his 
creatures,  or  his  right  to  punish  disobedience,  when  that  occurs.  With 
respect  to  God's  right  to  be  obeyed,  nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than 
that  the  perfect  rectitude  of  his  nature  forbids  him  to  give  up  or  to  relax 
that  right  at  all.     No  king  can  morally  give  up  his  right  to  be  obeyed 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES,  95 

in  the  full  degree  which  may  be  enjoined  by  the  laws  of  his  kingdom. 
No  parent  can  give  up  his  right  to  obedience,  in  things  lawful,  from  hi» 
children,  and  be  blameless.  In  both  cases,  if  this  be  done  voluntarily, 
it  argues  an  indifference  to  that  principle  of  rectitude  on  which  such 
duties  depend,  and,  therefore,  a  moral  imperfection.  Now  this  cannot 
be  attributed  to  God,  and,  therefore,  he  never  can  yield  up  his  right  to 
be  obeyed,  which  is  both  agreeable  to  abstract  rectitude,  and  is,  more- 
over, for  the  benefit  of  the  creature  himself,  as  the  contrary  would  be 
necessarily  injurious  to  him.  But  may  he  not  give  up  his  right  to  pun- 
ish, when  disobedience  has  actually  taken  place  ?  Only,  it  is  manifest, 
where  he  would  not  appear  by  this  to  give  up  his  claim  to  obedience, 
which  would  be  a  winking  at  offence  ;  and  where  he  has  not  absolutely 
bound  himself  to  punish.  But  neither  of  these  can  occur  here.  It  is 
only  by  punitive  acts  that  the  Supreme  Governor  makes  it  manifest  that 
he  stands  upon  his  right  to  be  obeyed,  and  that  he  will  not  relax  it.  If 
no  punishment  ensue,  then  it  must  follow,  that  that  right  is  given  up. 
From  the  same  principle  that  past  offences  are  regarded  with  impunity, 
it  would  also  follow,  that  all  future  ones  might  be  overlooked  in  like 
manner,  and  thus  government  would  be  abrogated,  and  the  obligation  of 
subjection  to  God  be,  in  effect,  cancelled.  If,  again,  impunity  were  con- 
fined to  a  few  offenders,  then  would  there  be  partiality  in  God ;  if  it 
were  extended  to  all,  then  would  he  renounce  his  sovereignty,  and  show 
himself  indifferent  to  that  love  of  rectitude  which  is  the  characteristic  of 
a  holy  being,  and  to  that  moral  order,  which  is  the  character  of  a  right- 
eous governor.  But,  in  addition  to  this,  we  have  already  seen  that,  by 
a  formal  law,  punishment  is  actually  threatened,  and  that  hi  the  extreme, 
and  in  all  cases  of  transgression  whatever.  Now,  from  this,  it  follows, 
that  nothing  less  than  the  attachment  of  such  a  penalty  to  transgression 
was  determined  by  the  wisdom  of  God  to  be  sufficient  to  uphold  the 
authority  of  his  laws  among  his  creatures ;  that  even  this  security,  in 
all  instances,  would  not  deter  them  from  sin ;  and,  therefore,  that  a  less 
awful  sanction  would  have  been  wholly  madequate  to  the  case.  If  so, 
then  not  to  exact  the  penalty  is  to  repeal  the  law,  to  reduce  its  sanction  to 
an  empty  threat,  unworthy  the  veracity  of  God,  and  to  render  it  altogether 
inert,  inasmuch  as  it  would  be  soon  discovered  whether  sin  were  follow- 
ed by  punishment  or  not.  This  is  a  principle  so  fully  recognized  in 
human  governments,  that  their  laws  have  generally  defined  the  measure 
of  punishment,  and  the  fact  being  proved,  the  punishment  follows  as  a 
thing  of  course  in  the  regular  order  of  administration.  It  is  true,  that  a 
power  of  pardon  is  generally  lodged  with  the  prince ;  but  the  reason  of 
this  is  the  imperfection  which  must  necessarily  cleave  to  all  human 
institutions,  so  that  there  may  be  circumstances  in  the  offence  which 
the  law  could  not  provide  against ;  or  there  may  be  an  expediency  or 
reason  of  state  which  supposes  some  compromise  of  strict  principle, 

2 


96  THEOLOaiCAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

some  weakness  on  the  part  of  the  sovereign  power,  some  desire  to  dis- 
arm resentment,  or  to  obtain  popularity,  or  to  gratify  some  powerful 
interest.  But  these  are  the  exceptions,  not  the  rule  ;  for,  in  general, 
the  supreme  power  proceeds  calmly  and  firmly  in  the  exercise  of  puni- 
tive justice,  in  order  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  laws,  and  to  deter 
others  from  offending.  Now  none  of  those  imperfections,  or  sinister 
interests,  which  interfere  to  produce  these  exceptions,  can  have  any 
place  in  the  Divine  goverament ;  and,  even  if  it  could  be  proved,  that, 
in  some  special  cases,  exceptions  might  occur  in  the  administration  of 
God,  yet  this  would  not  meet  the  case  of  those  who  would  establish  the 
hope  of  pardon  in  behalf  of  offending  men,  upon  the  prerogative  of 
God  to  relax  his  own  rights  and  to  remit  punishment,  since  what  is 
required  is  to  prove  that  there  is  a  general  rule  of  pardon,  not  a  few 
special  cases  of  exemption  from  the  denounced  penalty.  It  may,  there- 
fore, be  confidently  concluded,  that  there  is  no  relaxation  of  right  in  the 
Divine  administration,  and  no  forgiveness  of  sin  by  the  exercise  of  mere 
prerogative. 

The  notion  which  has  been  added  to  this,  that  repentance,  on  the 
part  of  the  offender,  places  him  in  a  new  relation,  and  renders  him  a  fit 
object  of  pardon,  will  be  found  equally  fallacious. 

This  argument  assumes  that,  in  a  case  of  impenitence,  the  moral 
fitness  which  is  supposed  to  present  itself,  in  the  case  of  penitents,  to 
claim  the  exercise  of  forgiveness,  does  not  exist,  and,  therefore,  that  it 
would  be  morally  unfit,  that  is  wrong,  to  exercise  it.  This  is,  indeed, 
expressly  conceded  by  Socinus,  who  says,  that  not  to  give  pardon,  in 
case  of  impenitence,  is  due  to  the  rectitude  and  equity  of  God.  (6)  It 
follows,  then,  that  the  principle  before  stated,  that  the  prerogative  of  God 
enables  him  to  forgive  sin,  must  be  given  up  by  all  who  hold  that  it  is 
only  when  repentance  takes  place,  that  a  moral  fitness  is  created  for  the 
exercise  of  this  act  of  grace.  Upon  their  own  showing,  sin  is  not,  and 
cannot,  consistently  with  rectitude,  be  forgiven  by  a  voluntary  surrender 
of  right,  or  from  mere  compassion ;  but,  in  order  to  make  this  an  act 
of  moral  fitness,  that  is,  a  right  and  proper  proceeding,  some  considera- 
tion must  be  presented,  independent  of  the  misery  to  which  the  offender 
has  exposed  himself,  and  which  misery  is  the  object  of  pity ;  something 
which  shall  make  it  right,  as  well  as  merciful  in  God  to  forgive.  Those 
who  urge  that  repentance  is  this  consideration,  do  thus,  unwittingly, 
give  up  their  own  principle,  and  tacitly  adopt  that  of  the  satisfactionists, 
differing  only  as  to  what  does  actually  constitute  it  right  in  God  to  for- 
give. But  the  sufficiency  of  mere  repentance  to  constitute  a  moral 
fitness  in  forgiveness,  all  who  consider  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  neces- 

(6)  "  Non  resipiscentibus  veniam  non  concedere,  id  demuni  naturae  divinae,  et 
decretis  ejus,  et  propterea  rectitudini,  et  equitati  debitum  est  ac  consentaneum." 
{Socin.  de  Sei-vat.) 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  97 

sary  atonement  for  sin,  do,  of  course,  deny ;  and  there  are,  indeed, 
many  considerations  suggested  to  us  by  turning  to  our  true  guide,  the 
Scriptures,  wiiolly  unfavourable  to  this  opinion. 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  no  intimation  in  them  that  the  penalty  of 
the  law  is  not  to  be  executed  in  case  of  repentance : — certainly  there 
was  none  given  in  the  promulgation  of  the  law  to  Adam  ;  there  is  none 
in  the  decalogue ;  none  in  any  of  those  passages  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  which  speak  of  the  legal  consequences  of  sin,  as  "  that  the 
wages  of  sin  is  death ;"  "  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die,"  dtc.  Re- 
pentance is  enjoined,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  it  is  true, 
but  then  it  is  in  connection  with  a  system  of  atonement  and  satisfaction, 
independent  of  repentance  ;  with  sacrifices  under  the  Mosaic  institution, 
and  with  the  death  and  redemption  of  Christ  under  the  new  covenant. 
In  both,  something  more  is  referred  to,  as  the  means  of  human  recovery, 
beside  repentance,  and  of  which,  indeed,  repentance  itself  is  represented 
as  an  effect  and  fruit.  Wherever  the  Divine  Being  and  his  creatures 
are  regarded  simply  in  their  legal  relation,  one  as  governor,  the  other 
as  subjects,  there  is  certainly  no  such  qualification  of  the  threatenings 
of  his  violated  law,  as  to  warrant  any  one  to  expect  remission  of  punish- 
ment upon  repentance. 

2.  It  is  not  true,  that  repentance  changes,  as  they  urge,  the  legal 
relation  of  the  guilty  to  God  whom  they  have  offended.  They  are 
offenders  still,  though  penitent.  The  sentence  of  the  law  is  directed 
against  transgression,  and  repentance  does  not  annihilate,  but,  on  the 
contrar)',  acknowledges  the  fact  of  that  transgression.  The  charge  lies 
against  the  offender ;  he  may  be  an  obdurate  or  a  penitent  criminal ; 
but,  in  either  case,  he  is  equally  criminal  of  all  for  which  he  stands 
truly  charged,  and  how  then  can  his  relation  to  the  lawgiver  be  changed 
by  repentance  ?  In  the  nature  of  the  thing,  nothing  but  pardon  can 
change  that  relation ;  for  nothing  but  pardon  can  cancel  crime,  and  it 
is  clear  that  repentance  is  not  pardon. 

3.  So  far  from  repentance  producing  this  change  of  relation,  and 
placing  men  in  the  same  situation  as  though  they  had  never  offended, 
we  have  proofs  to  the  contrary,  both  from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the 
established  course  of  providence.  For  the  first,  though  men  are  now 
under  a  dispensation  of  gi'ace,  yet,  after  long- continued  obstinacy  and 
refusal  of  grace,  the  Scriptures  represent  repentance  as  incapable  of 
turning  away  the  coming  vengeance.  "  Because  I  have  called  and  ye 
refused ;  I  have  stretched  out  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded  ; — When 
your  fear  cometh  as  desolation,  and  your  destruction  as  a  whirhvind, 
when  distress  and  anguish  cometh  upon  you ;  then  shall  they  call  upon 
me  but  I  will  not  answer ;  they  shall  seek  me  early,  but  they  shall  not 
find  me."  Here,  to  call  upon  God,  and  to  seek  him  early,  that  is, 
earnestly  and  carefully,  are  acts  of  repentance  and  reformation  too,  and 

voL.n.  7 


98  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

yet  they  have  no  effect  in  changing  the  relation  of  the  guilty  to  God, 
their  judge,  and  they  are  proceeded  against  for  their  past  offences, 
which,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  Socinians,  they  ought  not  to  be. 
The  course  of  providence  in  this  life,  is,  also,  in  opposition  to  the  notion 
of  the  efficacy  of  mere  repentance  to  arrest  punishment.  For,  as  Bishop 
Butler  has  so  well  shown,  [Analogy  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,) 
the  sufferings  which  follow  sin  in  this  present  life  by  natural  conse- 
quence, and  the  established  constitution  of  things,  are  as  much  the  effect 
of  God's  appointment  as  the  direct  penalties  attached  by  him  to  the  vio- 
lation of  his  laws ;  and  though  they  may  differ  in  degree,  that  does  not 
affect  the  question.  Whether  the  punishment  be  of  long  or  of  short 
duration,  inflicted  in  the  present  state  or  in  the  next,  if  the  justice  or 
benevolence  of  God  requires  that  punishment  should  not  be  inflicted, 
when  repentance  has  taken  place,  it  cannot  be  inflicted  consistently 
with  those  attributes  in  any  degree  whatever.  But  repentance  does  not 
prevent  these  penal  consequences — repentance  does  not  restore  health 
injured  by  intemperance,  property  wasted  by  profusion,  or  character 
dishonoured  by  an  evil  practice.  The  moral  administration  under  which 
we  are,  therefore,  shows  that  indemnity  is  not  necessarily  the  effect  of 
repentance  in  the  present  life,  and  we  have,  consequently,  no  reason  to 
conclude  that  it  will  be  so  in  another. 

4.  The  true  nature  of  repentance,  as  it  is  stated  in  the  Scriptures, 
seems  entirely  to  have  been  overlooked  or  disregarded  by  those  who 
contend  that  repentance  is  a  reason  for  the  non-execution  of  the  penalty 
of  the  law.  It  is  either  a  sorrow  for  sin,  merely  because  of  the  painful 
consequences  to  which  it  has  exposed  the  offender,  unless  forgiven,  or 
it  arises  from  a  perception  also  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  a  dislike  to  it  as 
such,  with  real  remorse  and  sorrow,  that  the  authority  of  God  has  been 
slighted,  and  his  goodness  abused.  Now  if,  by  repentance,  is  meant 
repentance  in  the  former  sense,  then  to  give  pardon  on  such  a  condition 
would  be  tantamount  to  the  entire  and  absolute  repeal  of  all  law,  and 
the  annihilation  of  all  government,  since  every  criminal,  when  convicted, 
and  finding  himself  in  immediate  danger  of  punishment,  would  as  neces- 
sarily repent  as  he  would  necessarily  be  sorry  to  be  liable  to  pain ;  and 
this  sorrow  being,  in  that  case,  repentance,  it  would  in  all  cases, 
according  to  this  doctrine,  render  it  morally  fit  and  right  that  forgive- 
ness should  be  exercised,  and,  consequently,  wrong  that  it  should  be 
refused.  In  no  case,  therefore,  could  the  penalty  of  the  law  be,  in  any 
degree,  enforced. 

But  if  repentance  be  taken  in  the  second  sense,  and  this  is  certainly 
the  light  in  which  tine  repentance  is  exhibited  in  the  Scriptures,  then  it 
is  forgotten  that  such  is  the  corrupt  state  of  man,  that  he  is  incapable 
of  penitence  of  this  kind.  This  follows  from  that  view  of  human  de- 
pravity which  we  have  already  established  from  the  Scriptures,  and 
2 


SECOND.J  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  99 

which  we  need  not  repeat.  In  conformity  with  this  view  of  the  entire 
corruptness  of  man's  nature,  therefore,  repentance  is  said  to  be  the  gift 
of  Christ,  who,  in  consequence  of  being  exalted  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour,  "  gives  repentance,"  as  Well  as  "  remission  of  sins,"  a  gift 
quite  superfluous,  if  to  repent  truly  were  in  the  power  of  man,  and  inde- 
pendent of  Christ.  To  suppose  man  to  be  capable  of  a  repentance, 
which  is  the  result  of  genuine  principle,  is  to  assume  human  nature  to 
be  what  it  is  not.  The  whole  rests  on  this  question :  for,  if  man  be 
totally  corrupt,  the  only  principles  from  which  that  repentance  and  cor- 
rection of  manners,  which  are  supposed  in  the  argument,  can  flow,  do 
not  exist  in  his  nature ;  and  if  we  allow  no  more  than  that  the  propen- 
sity to  evil  in  him  is  stronger  than  the  propensity  to  good,  it  would  be 
absurd  to  suppose  that  in  opposing  propensities,  the  weaker  should  ever 
resist  the  more  powerful. 

But  take  it  that  repentance,  in  the  best  interpretation,  is  possible  to 
fallen,  unassisted  man,  and  that  it  is  actually  exercised  and  followed 
even  by  a  better  conduct,  still  in  no  good  sense  can  it  be  shown,  that 
this  would  make  it  morally  right  and  jit  in  the  Supreme  Being  to  for- 
give offences  against  his  government.  Socinus,  we  have  seen  in  the 
above  quotation,  allows  that  it  would  not  be  right,  not  consistent  with 
God's  moral  attributes  to  forgive  the  impenitent ;  and  all,  indeed,  who  urge 
repentance  as  the  sole  condition  of  pardon,  adopt  the  same  principle ; 
but  how,  then,  does  it  appear  that,  to  grant  pardon  upon  repentance  is 
right,  that  is,  just  in  itself,  or  a  manifestation  of  a  just  and  righteous 
government  1 

If  right  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  moral  fitness,  its  lowest  sense,  the 
moral  correspondence  of  one  thing  with  another,  it  cannot  be  morally  fit 
iu  a  perfectly  holy  being  to  be  so  indifferent  to  offences,  as  not  to  express, 
toward  the  offenders,  any  practical  displeasure  of  any  kind  ;  yet  this  the 
argument  supposes,  since  the  shghtest  infliction  of  punishment,  should 
repentance  take  place,  would  be  contrary  to  the  principle  assumed.  If 
justice  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  giving  to  every  one  what  is  due,  the  Divine 
Being  cannot  be  just  in  this  sense,  should  he  treat  an  offender,  though 
afterward  penitent,  precisely  as  he  treats  those  who  have  persevered  in 
obedience,  without  defect  of  any  kind  ;  and  yet,  if  repentance  be  pleaded 
as  a  moral  reason  for  entirely  overlooking  offence,  then  will  all  be  treated 
alike,  whether  obedient  or  the  contrary.  But  finally,  if  the  justice  of 
God  be  considered  with  reference  to  government,  the  impossibility  of  ex- 
onerating a  penitent  offender,  and  the  upholding  of  a  righteous  adminis- 
tration is  most  apparent.  That  we  are  under  government  is  certain ; 
that  we  are  under  a  settled  law  is  equally  so,  and  that  law  explains  to  us 
the  nature  of  the  government  by  which  we  are  controlled.  In  all  the  state- 
ments  made  respecting  this  government  in  Scripture,  the  government  of 
earthly  sovereigns  and  magistrates  is  the  shadow  under  which  it  is  repre- 


100  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

sented,  and  the  one  is  the  perfect  model  after  which  the  other  has  been 
imperfectly  framed.  Nothing  that  is  said  of  God  being  a  father,  is  ever 
adduced  to  lower  his  claims  as  Lord,  or  to  diminish  the  reverence  and 
fear  of  his  creatures  toward  him  under  that  character.  The  penalty  of 
transgression  is  Death.  This  is  too  plainly  written  in  the  Scriptures 
to  be,  for  a  moment,  denied,  and  if  it  were  righteous  to  attach  that 
penalty  to  offence,  it  is  most  certainly  righteous  to  execute  it ;  and, 
therefore,  administrative  justice  cannot  be  maintained  if  it  be  not  exe- 
cuted. As  to  the  impenitent,  this,  indeed,  is  conceded ;  but  penitence 
makes  no  difference  ;  for,  if  the  end  of  attaching  this  penalty  to  offence, 
was  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  law,  then  not  to  execute  it  upon  the 
repentant  would  still  be  to  annul  that  authority.  This  repentance  is 
either  in  the  power  of  the  transgressor,  or  it  is  not.  If  the  former,  he 
will  always  be  disposed  to  exercise  it,  when  the  danger  approaches,  rather 
than  die ;  and  so  he  may  sin  as  often  as  he  pleases,  and  yet  have  it  al- 
ways in  his  own  power  to  turn  aside  the  punishment,  which  amounts  to  a 
substantive  repeal  of  the  law  and  the  abrogation  of  all  government.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  production  of  a  penitent  disposition  is  not  in  his 
own  power,  and  can  only  come  from  above,  as  a  matter  of  grace,  it  is  a 
strange  anomaly  to  suppose  a  government  so  established  as  to  oblige  the 
governor  to  concur  in  producing  repentance  in  those  who  despise  his  au- 
thority, so  that  they  may  avoid  punishment.  This  would  be  grace,  and  not 
law,  most  emphatically  ;  for,  if  the  governor  were  bound  by  any  principle 
of  any  kmd  to  produce  this  sentiment  of  repentance  in  order  to  constitute 
a  moral  fitness  in  the  exercise  of  pardon,  he  would,  for  any  thing  we  can 
see,  be  bound  by  it,  to  use  the  same  means  to  render  all  penitent,  that 
all  might  escape  punishment,  and  to  do  this,  too,  as  often  as  they  fell  into 
sin,  that  punishment  might,  in  no  case,  follow,  except  when  the  means 
employed  by  him  for  that  purpose  were  obstinately  resisted  ;  and  thus 
repentance  would  be  brought  in  as  the  substitute  of  obedience.  But  since 
the  end  of  law  is  to  command  obedience,  and  it  is  invested  with  autho- 
rity for  the  purpose  of  effecting  that,  it  ceases  to  answer  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  established,  when  it  accepts  repentance  in  the  place  of 
obedience.  This  is  not  its  end,  as  an  instrument  of  moral  government ; 
nor  is  it  a  means  to  its  proper  end,  which  is  obedience ;  for  repentance 
©an  give  no  security  for  future  obedience,  since  a  penitent  transgressor, 
whose  nature  is  infected  with  a  corrupt  moral  principle  and  habit,  is  much 
more  liable  to  sin  again  than  when  innocent,  as  in  his  first  estate  ;  and, 
as  this  scheme  makes  no  provision  at  all  for  the  moral  cure  of  man's 
fallen  nature  by  the  renewing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  it  abolishes 
all  law  as  an  instrument  of  moral  order,  and  substitutes  pardon  as  an 
END  of  government  instead  of  obedience. 

With  this  view  of  the  insufficiency  of  repentance  to  obtain  pardon  the 
Scriptures  agree  ;  for  not,  now,  to  advert  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Tes^ 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  101 

lament,  which  will  be  subsequently  considered,  we  need  only  refer  to  the 
Gospel,  which  is  professedly  a  declaration  of  the  mercy  of  God  to  sin- 
ning men,  and  which  also  professedly  la}  s  down  the  means  by  which  the 
pardon  of  their  offences  is  to  be  attained.  Without  entering  at  all  into 
other  subjects  connected  with  this,  it  is  enough  here  to  show  that,  in  the 
Gospel,  pardon  is  not  connected  with  mere  repentance,  as  it  must  have 
been  had  the  doctrine,  against  which  we  have  contended,  been  true. 
John  the  Baptist  was  emphatically  a  preacher  of  repentance,  and,  had 
nothing  but  mere  repentance  been  required  in  order  to  salvation,  he 
would  have  been  the  most  successful  of  preachers.  So  numerous  were 
the  multitudes  which  submitted  to  the  power  of  his  ministry,  that  the 
largest  terms  are  used  by  the  Evangelist  Matthew  to  express  the  effect 
produced  by  it, — "  Then  went  out  all  Judea,  and  all  Jerusalem,  and  all 
the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins."  Of  the  truth  of  their  repentance,  no  doubt  is  ex- 
pressed. On  the  contrary,  when  John  excepts  only  "  many  of  the 
Sadducees  and  Pharisees"  who  came  "  to  his  baptism"  as  hypocrites, 
we  are  bound  to  conclude,  that  he,  who  appears  to  have  had  the  super- 
natural gift  of  discovering  the  spirits  of  men,  allov/ed  the  repentance  of 
the  rest  generally  to  be  genuine.  It  would  follow,  then,  from  the  prin- 
ciple laid  down  by  the  adversaries  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  namel}',  that  repentance  alone  renders  it  morally  fit  in  God  to  for- 
give sin,  and  that,  therefore,  he  can  require  nothing  else  but  true  repent- 
ance in  order  to  pardon,  that  the  disciples  of  the  Baptist  needed  not  to 
look  for  any  thing  beyond  what  their  master  was  the  instrument  of  im- 
parting by  his  ministry.  But  this  is  contradicted  by  the  fact.  He  taught 
them  to  look  for  a  higher  baptism,  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  to  a  more 
effectual  teacher,  the  Christ,  whose  voice  or  herald  he  was  ;  all  he  did 
and  said  bore  upon  it  a  preparatory  character,  and  to  this  character  he 
was  most  careful  to  give  the  utmost  distinctness,  that  his  hearers  might 
not  be  mistaken.  To  two  of  his  disciples,  standing  with  him  when  "  he 
looked  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked,"  he  said,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God 
which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ;"  and  thus  he  confessed  that  it 
was  not  himself,  nor  his  doctrine,  nor  the  repentance  which  it  produced, 
which  took  away  sin ;  but  that  it  was  taken  away  by  Christ  alone,  and 
that  in  his  sacrificial  character,  as  "  the  Lamb  of  God."  Nay  what, 
indeed,  is  still  more  expUcit,  he  himself  declares,  that  everlasting  life 
was  not  attained  by  the  repentance  which  he  preached,  but  by  believing 
on  Christ ;  for  he  concludes  his  discourse  concerning  Jesus  (John  iii, 
25,  36)  with  these  memorable  words,  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son 
hath  everlasting  life  ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life ; 
but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  The  testimony  of  John  was, 
therefore,  that  more  than  repentance,  even  faith  in  Christ,  was  neces- 
sary to  salvation.     Such  also  was  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord  himself, 

2 


102  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

though  he,  too,  was  a  preacher  of  repentance  ;  and  that  of  the  apostles, 
who,  proclaiming  that  "  all  men  every  where"  should  repent,  not  less 
explicitly  preached  that  all  men  every  where  should  believe ;  and  that 
they  were  "justified  by  faith,"  and  thus  had  "peace  with  God  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'* 


CHAPTER   XX. 

Redemption — Death  of  Christ  Propitiatory. 

These  points,  then,  being  so  fully  estabhshed,  that  sin  is  neither  for- 
given by  the  mere  prerogative  of  God,  nor  upon  the  account  of  mere 
repentance  in  man,  we  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  Scripture  account  of 
the  real  consideration  on  which  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  transgres- 
sion is  delayed,  and  the  offer  of  forgiveness  is  made  to  offenders. 

To  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament  we  shall  first  direct  our 
attention,  and  then  point  out  that  harmony  of  doctrine  on  this  subject 
which  pervades  the  whole  Scriptures,  and  makes  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  give  their  agreeing  testimony  to  that  one  method  of  love,  wis- 
dom, and  justice,  by  which  a  merciful  God  justifies  the  ungodly. 

1.  The  first  thing  which  strikes  every  attentive,  and,  indeed,  every 
cursory  reader  of  the  New  Testament,  must  be,  that  the  pardon  of  our 
sin,  and  our  entire  salvation,  is  ascribed  to  the  death  of  Christ.  We  do 
not,  now,  inquire  in  what  sense  his  death  availed  to  these  great  results ; 
but  we,  at  present,  only  state  that,  in  some  sense,  our  salvation  is  ex- 
pressly and  emphatically  connected  with  that  event.  "  I  lay  down  my 
life  for  the  sheep."  "  He  gave  himself  for  us."  He  died,  "  the  just  for 
the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God."  "  Christ  was  once  offered 
to  bear  the  sins  of  many,"  "  While  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for 
us."  "  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness 
of  our  sins."  "  He  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."  "  We  who  were 
afar  off  are  made  nigh  by  the  hlood  of  Christ."  "  Unto  him  that  loved 
us  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  hlood  ,•"  with  innumerable 
other  passages,  in  which,  with  equal  emphasis,  the  salvation  of  man 
is  connected  with  the  death  of  Christ. 

This  is  so  undeniable,  that  it  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  recognized  in  the 
two  great  schemes  opposed  to  that  which  has  been  received  generally 
Ijy  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  in  all  ages  has  proclaimed  that  the 
death  of  Christ  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men,  and 
necessary  to  make  the  exercise  of  pardon  consistent  with  the  essential 
righteousness  of  God,  and  with  his  righteous  government.  The  Soci- 
nian  scheme  admits  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  important  to  confirm 
his  doctrine,  and  to  lead  to  his  resurrection,  the  crowning  miracle  by 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  103 

which  its  truth  was  demonstrated  ;  and  that  we  have  redemption  through 
his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  because  "  we  are  led,  by  the  due  con- 
sideration of  Christ's  death,  and  its  consequences,  to  that  repentance, 
which,  under  the  merciful  constitution  of  the  Divine  government,  always 
obtains  forgiveness."  The  second  scheme,  which  is  that  of  the  modem 
Arians,  goes  farther.  It  represents  the  coming  of  Christ,  whom  they 
consider  to  be  the  most  exalted  of  the  creatures  of  God,  into  the  world, 
and  his  labours  and  sufferings  in  behalf  of  men,  as  acts  of  the  most  dis- 
interested  and  tender  benevolence,  in  reward  and  honour  of  which  he  is 
allowed  to  bestow  pardon  upon  his  disciples,  upon  their  sincere  repent- 
ance, and  to  plead  his  interest  with  God,  who  delights  to  honour  the 
generous  conduct  of  his  Son  toward  the  human  race.  His  voluntary 
sufferings  and  death  for  the  sins  of  mankind,  according  to  them,  gave  to 
his  intercession  with  God  great  efficacy,  and  thus,  by  his  mediation,  sin- 
ners are  reconciled  to  God,  and  raised  to  eternal  life. 

Far  as  even  the  latter  of  these  theories  falls  below  the  sense  of 
Scripture  on  this  subject,  yet  both  are,  in  this  respect,  important,  that 
they  concede  that  the  death  of  Christ,  as  the  means  of  human  salva- 
tion, is  made  so  prominent  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it  cannot  be  left 
out  of  our  consideration  when  the  doctrine  of  man's  salvation  is  treated 
of;  and  also,  that  this  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  must, 
in  some  way  or  other,  be  accounted  for  and  explained.  The  Socinian 
accounts  for  it  by  making  the  death  of  Christ  tJie  means  by  which 
repentance  is  produced  in  the  heart  of  man,  so  as  to  constitute  it 
morally  fit  that  he  should  be  forgiven.  The  modern  Arian  accounts 
for  it  by  connecting  with  this  notion,  that  kind  of  merit  in  the  death  of 
Christ  which  arises  from  a  generous  and  benevolent  self  devotion  ;  and 
which,  when  pleaded  by  him  in  the  way  of  mediation,  God  is  pleased 
to  honour  by  accepting  repentance,  when  it  is  produced  in  the  heart, 
and  accompanied  with  purposes  of  amendment,  in  place  of  perfect 
obedience. 

2.  But  the  views  given  us  of  the  death  of  Christ,  by  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament,  go  much  farther  than  these,  because  they  repre- 
sent the  death  of  Christ  as  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  men,  a  principle 
which  both  the  hypotheses  just  mentioned  wholly  exclude.  The  reason 
of  forgiveness  is  placed  by  one  in  repentance  merely,  by  the  other,  also, 
in  the  exercise  of  the  right  which  God  had  to  pardon,  but  which  he 
chose  to  exercise  in  honour  of  the  philanthropy  of  Jesus  Christ.  Both 
make  the  death  of  Christ,  though  in  a  different  way  and  in  a  very  sub- 
ordinate sense,  the  means  of  obtaining  pardon,  because  it  is  a  means  of 
bringing  men  into  a  state  in  which  they  are  Jit  objects  for  the  exercise 
of  an  act  of  grace ;  but  the  Scripture  doctrine  is,  that  the  death  of 
Christ  is  not  the  meritorious  means,  but  the  meritorious  cause  of  the 
exercise  of  forgiveness;  and  repentance  but  one  of  the   instrumental 

2 


104  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

means  of  actually  obtaining  it ;  and,  in  consistency  with  this  view,  they 
speak  of  the  death  of  Christ,  not  as  one  of  many  means,  by  which  the 
same  end  might  have  been  accomplished ;  but  as,  in  the  strictest  sense, 
necessary  to  man's  salvation. 

This  has,  indeed,  been  considered,  even  by  some  divines  professing 
orthodoxy,  to  be  a  bold  position,  but,  as  we  shall  see,  with  little  consist- 
ency on  their  part.  It  follows,  of  course,  from  the  Socinian  and  Arian 
hypotheses,  that  if  our  Lord  were  a  man,  or  an  angelic  creature  ;  and  if 
he  were  rather  the  mere  messenger  of  a  mercy  which  might  be  exer- 
cised on  prerogative,  than  the  procuring  cause  of  it ;  any  other  creature 
beside  himself  might  have  conveyed  the  message  of  this  mercy  ;  might 
have  exhibited  a  generous  devotion  in  our  behalf ;  and  been  an  effec- 
tual instrument  to  bring  men  to  that  repentance  which  would  prepare 
them  to  receive  it.  But  when  it  is  admitted,  that  Christ  was  the  Divine 
Son  of  God  ;  that  he  was  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  ;"  that  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin  required  a  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice  of  so  noble  and  infi- 
nitely exalted  a  kind  as  that  which  was  offered  by  the  sufferings  and  death 
of  the  incarnate  Deity,  even  from  such  premises  alone  it  would  seem 
necessarily  to  follow  that,  but  for  the  interposition  of  Christ,  sin  could 
not  have  been  forgiven,  consistently  with  a  perfectly  righteous  govern- 
ment, and,  therefore,  not  forgiven  at  all,  unless  a  sacrifice  of  equal 
merit,  which  supposes  a  being  of  equal  gloiy  and  dignity  as  its  subject, 
could  have  been  found.  If  no  such  being  existed  out  of  the  Godhead, 
then  human  hope  rested  solely  on  the  voluntary  incarnation  of  the 
Son  of  God  ;  and  the  overwhelming  fact  and  mystery  of  his  becoming 
flesh,  in  order  to  suffer  for  us,  itself  shows,  that  the  case  to  be  remedied 
was  one  of  a  character  absolutely  extreme,  and,  therefore,  not  otherwise 
remediable.  If  inferior  means  had  been  sufficient,  then  more  was  done 
by  the  Father,  when  he  delivered  up  his  Son  for  us,  than  was  necessary, 
a  conclusion  of  an  impious  character ;  and  if  the  greatest  possible  gift 
was  bestowed,  then  nothing  less  could  have  been  efl?ectual,  and  this  was 
necessary  to  human  salvation.  Every  beUever  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ 
is  bound  to  this  conclusion. 

This  matter  is,  however,  put  beyond  all  reasonable  question  by  the 
testimony  of  Scripture.  "  Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ 
to  suffer  and  to  rise  from  the  dead."  Here  a  necessity  for  the  death  of 
Christ  is  plainly  expressed.  If  it  be  said,  that  the  necessity  was  the 
fulfilment  of  what  "  had  been  written"  in  the  prophets  concerning  the 
sufferings  of  Messiah,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  what  was  predicted 
on  this  subject  by  the  prophets  arose  out  of  a  previous  appointment  of 
God,  in  whose  eternal  counsel  Christ  had  been  designated  as  the 
Redeemer  of  man  ;  and  that  the  sole  end  and  reason  of  the  death  of 
Christ  could  not,  therefore,  be  the  mere  fulfilment  of  the  prophecies 
respecting  him.      The  verse  which  follows  abundantly  proves  this — 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  105 

"  And  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his 
name,"  Luke  xxiv,  47.  His  death  was  not  only  necessary  for  the 
accomplishment  of  prophecy ;  but  for  the  publication  of  "  repentance 
and  remission  of  sins  in  his  name,"  both  of  which,  therefore,  depended 
upon  it.  It  was  God's  pui-pose  to  offer  forgiveness  to  man,  before  the 
prophets  issued  their  predictions ;  it  was  his  purpose  to  do  this  in  "  his 
name,"  on  account  of,  and  in  consideration  of  his  dying  for  them  :  this 
was  predicted  ;  but  the  necessity  of  the  death  of  Christ  rested  on  this 
previous  appointment  to  which  the  prophecies  corresponded.  In  Matthew 
xvi,  21,  the  same  sentiment  is  expressed  without  any  reference  to  the 
fulfilment  of  prophecy.  "  From  that  time  forth  began  Jesus  to  show 
unto  his  disciples,  how  that  he  must  go  unto  Jerusalem,  and  suffer  many 
things  of  the  elders  and  chief  priests  and  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  be 
raised  again  the  third  day."  The  answer,  too,  of  our  Lord  to  Peter, 
who,  upon  this  declaration,  said,  "  Be  it  far  from  thee.  Lord  :  this  shall 
not  be  unto  thee,"  is  remarkable.  "But  he  turned,  and  said  unto 
Peter,  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan ;  thou  art  an  offence  to  me ;  for 
thou  savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but  those  that  be  of  men." 
These  words  plainly  imply,  that  for  Christ  to  suffer  and  die,  and  in  this 
manner,  and  not  according  to  the  carnal  and  human  views  of  Peter,  to 
accomplish  the  purpose  of  his  coming  into  the  world,  was  «  of  God ;"  it 
was  his  purpose^  his  appointment.  This  is  not  language  to  be  used  as 
to  a  martyr  dying  to  prove  his  sincerity ;  for  death,  in  such  cases,  is 
rather  permitted  than  purposed  and  appointed,  and  it  would  be  to  adopt 
language  never  applied  to  such  cases  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  say  that 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  martyrs  are  "  of  God."  The  necessity  of 
Christ's  death,  then,  rested  on  Divine  appointment,  and  that  on  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case  ;  and  if  he  "  must"  die,  in  order  that  we  might  live,  then 
we  live  only  in  consequence  of  his  death. 

The  same  view  is  conveyed  by  a  strongly  figurative  expression  in 
John  xii,  23,  24 :  "  And  Jesus  answered  them,  saying,  The  hour  is 
come,  that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified.  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth 
alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit."  From  which  it 
inevitably  follows,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  as  necessary  to  human 
salvation  as  the  vegetable  death  of  the  seed  of  com  to  the  production  of 
the  harvest ;  necessary,  therefore,  in  this  sense,  that  one  could  not  take 
place  without  the  other.  But  for  this  he  would  have  remained  "  alone," 
and  have  brought  no  "  sons  to  glory." 

In  a  word,  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  our  salva- 
tion from  death  and  misery  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  call  upon 
our  gratitude  on  this  account,  are  founded  upon  the  same  doctrine. 
These  are  too  numerous  to  be  cited,  and  are  sufficiently  famihar. 
"  We  have  redemption  through  his  blood  ,•"  "  we  are  saved  from  wrath 

2 


106  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

through  him,"  &c.  Such  forms  of  speech  are  continually  occurring,  and 
the  highest  ascriptions  of  praise  are  given  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son 
on  this  account.  But,  most  clearly,  they  all  suppose  that  "  wrath"  and 
"death,"  but  for  this  interposition  of  the  passion  of  Christ  on  our 
account,  would  have  been  the  doom  of  sinning  men.  They  contain  not 
the  most  distant  intimation,  that  had  not  he  come  into  the  world  "  to 
seek  and  to  save  them  that  were  lost,^^  they  would  have  been  saved  by 
any  other  means ;  that  had  not  he,  the  good  Shepherd,  laid  down  his 
life  for  the  sheep,  they  would  have  been  brought  by  some  other  process 
into  the  heavenly  fold.  The  very  emphasis  of  the  expression  "  lost," 
implies  a  desperate  case  ;  for  as  lost  they  could  not  have  been  described, 
if  pardon  had  been  offered  them  on  mere  repentance ;  and  if  the  death 
of  Christ  had  been  one  only  of  many  means,  through  some  of  which 
that  disposition  in  God  to  forgive  offenders  miLst  have  operated,  which 
is  the  doctrine  of  all  who  set  up  the  goodness  of  the  Divine  government 
against  its  justice.  In  that  case,  mankind  could  not  have  been  in  a 
hopeless  state,  independent  of  Christ's  redemption,  the  view  which  is  uni- 
formly taken  of  their  case  in  Scripture,  where  the  death  of  Christ  is  exhi- 
bited, not  as  one  expedient  of  many,  but  as  the  only  hope  of  the  guilty. 

3.  The  Scriptures,  in  speaking  of  the  death  of  Christ,  inform  us  that 
he  died  "  for  us,"  that  is,  in  our  room  and  stead.  With  this  representa- 
tion neither  of  the  hypotheses  to  which  we  have  adverted,  as  attempting 
to  account  for  the  importance  attached  to  the  death  of  our  Lord  in  the 
New  Testament,  agrees,  and,  therefore,  both  of  them  fall  far  below  the 
whole  truth  of  the  case.  The  Socinian  scheme  makes  the  death  of 
Christ  only  an  incidental  benefit,  as  sealing  the  truth  of  his  doctrine, 
and  setting  an  example  of  eminent  passive  virtue.  In  this  sense,  indeed, 
they  acknowledge  that  he  died  ^'-for^^  men,  because  in  this  indirect 
manner  they  derive  the  benefit  of  instruction  from  his  death,  and  because 
some  of  the  motives  to  virtue  are  placed  in  a  stronger  light.  The  modern 
Arian  scheme,  sometimes  called  the  intercession  hypothesis,  acknow- 
ledges that  he  acquired,  by  his  disint  rested  and  generous  sufferings,  the 
highest  degree  of  virtue,  and  a  powerful  interest  with  God,  by  which  his 
intercession,  on  behalf  of  penitent  offenders,  is  honoured  by  an  exercise 
of  higher  mercy  than  would  otherwise  have  taken  place  ;  but  it  by  no 
means  follows,  from  this,  that  repentance  might  not  otherwise  have 
taken  place,  and  mercy  have  been  otherwise  exercised.  According  to 
this  view,  then,  Christ  died  for  the  benefit,  indeed,  of  men,  somewhat 
more  directly  than  on  the  Socinian  scheme  ;  but  he  did  not  die  for  them 
in  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  that  is,  in  their  room  and  stead  ;  his  death 
was  not  vicarious,  and  it  is  not,  on  that  account,  directly,  that  the  guilty 
are  absolved  from  condemnation. 

To  prove  that  our  Lord  died  for  men,  in  the  sense  of  dying  in  their 
steady  the  testimony  of  the  sacred  writers  must,  however,  be  adduced, 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  107 

and  it  is  equally  abundant  and  explicit.  St.  Peter  says  he  died,  "  the 
just /or  the  unjust,"  that  "  he  suffered /or  us."  St.  Paul  that  "he  died 
for  all,"  that  "  he  tasted  death  f(yr  every  man,"  that  he  died  '•^  for  the 
ungodly,"  that  "  he  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,"  and  our  Lord  him- 
self declares  "  that  he  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  many."  To  show, 
however,  that  this  phrase  means  no  more  than  a  final  cause,  and  that 
the  only  notion  intended  to  be  conveyed  is  that  Christ  died  for  our 
benefit,  it  is  argued,  by  the  objectors,  that  the  Greek  prepositions  used 
in  the  above  quotations  u-jTsp,  and  avrj,  do  not  always  signify  substitu- 
tion;  but  are  sometimes  to  be  rendered  "on  account  of"  as  when 
Christ  is  said  to  have  "suffered /or  our  sins,"  which  cannot  be  rendered 
instead  of  our  sins.  All  this  may,  indeed,  be  granted  ;  but  then  it  is 
as  certain,  that  these  prepositions  do  often  signify  substitution ;  and  that 
the  Greeks,  by  these  forms  of  expression,  were  wont  to  express  a  vica. 
rious  death,  is  abundantly  proved  by  the  examples  given  by  Raphelius, 
on  Romans  v,  8.  Nor  are  instances  wanting  of  texts  in  which  these 
particles  can  only  be  interpreted  when  taken  in  the  sense  of"  instead  of," 
and  in  "  the  place  of."  So  in  the  speech  of  Caiaphas,  "  it  is  expedient 
that  one  man  should  die,  v^rsp,  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation 
perish  not ;"  he  plainly  declares,  that  either  Christ  or  the  nation  must 
perish  ;  and  that  by  putting  the  former  to  death,  he  would  die  instead  of 
the  nation.  In  Romans  v,  6-8,  the  sense  in  which  Christ  "  died  for 
us,"  is  indubitably  fixed  by  the  context.  "  For  scarcely  for  a  righteous 
man  will  one  die,  yet  peradventure  for  a  good  man  some  would  even 
dare  to  die  ;  but  God  commendeth  his  love  toward  us,  in  that  while  we 
were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died /or  us  ;"  on  which  passage  Doddridge  has 
observed,  "  one  can  hardly  imagine  any  one  would  die  for  a  good  msui, 
unless  it  were  to  redeem  his  hfe  by  giving  up  his  own."  In  this  sense 
also,  avTi  is  used  by  the  LXX,  2  Sam.  xviii,  33,  where  David  says  con- 
cerning Absalom,  "would  to  God  I  had  died  for  thee,"  (avri  Cou.)  Here 
he  could  mean  nothing  else  but  to  wish  that  he  had  died  in  Absalom's 
stead.  In  the  sense  of  "  in  the  room  or  stead  of,"  avn  is  also  used  in 
many  places  of  the  New  Testament ;  as,  "  Archelaus  did  reign  in 
Judea  (avri)  in  the  room  of  his  father  Herod  :"  "  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will 
he  (avri)  for  a  fish,  in  place  or  instead  of  a  fish,  give  him  a  serpent." 
When,  therefore,  the  same  preposition  is  used,  Mark  x,  45,  "  The  Son 
of  man  came  to  give  his  hfe  a  ransom  for  (avr»)  many,"  there  can 
surely  be  no  reason  drawn  from  the  meaning  of  the  particle  itself  to 
prevent  its  being  so  understood.  That  it  may  be  so  taken  is  certain, 
for  this  is  a  sense  of  the  preposition  constantly  occurring ;  and  if  that 
sense  is  rejected  and  another  chosen,  the  reason  must  be  brought  from 
the  contrariety  of  the  doctrine  which  it  conveys  to  some  other ;  whereas 
not  one  passage  is  even  pretended  to  be  produced,  which  denies  that 
Christ  did  thus  die  in  the  stead  of  the  ungodly,  and  give  his  life  a  ran- 

2 


108  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

som  in  the  place  or  stead  of  the  hves  of  many.  The  particles  -j-^r^p  and 
avTj  have  other  senses  ;  this  is  not  denied ;  but,  as  Bishop  Stillingfleet 
has  observed,  "  a  substitution  could  not  be  more  properly  expressed  than 
it  is  in  Scripture  by  them." 

The  force  of  this  has,  at  all  times,  been  felt  by  the  Socinians,  and 
has  rendered  it  necessary  for  them  to  resort  to  subterfuges.  Socinus 
acknowledges,  and  after  him  Crelhus,  that,  "  when  redemption  is  spo- 
ken of,  avTj  imphes  commutation,^^  but  they  attempt  to  escape,  by  consi- 
dering both  the  redemption  and  the  commutation  metaphorical.  Dr. 
Priestley,  too,  admits  the  probability  of  the  interpretation  of  Christ's 
dying  for  us,  being  to  die  instead  of  us,  and  then  contends  that  he  did 
this  consequentially  and  not  directly  so,  "  as  a  substitute  for  us ;  for  if, 
in  consequence  of  Christ's  not  having  been  sent  to  instruct  and  reform 
the  world,  mankind  had  continued  unreformed,  and  if  the  necessary  con- 
sequence of  Christ's  coming  was  his  death,  by  whatever  means,  and  in 
whatever  manner  it  was  brought  about ;  it  is  plain  that  there  was,  in 
fact,  no  other  alternative  but  his  death  or  ours."  {History  of  Cormp. 
tions,  (Sf-c.)  Thus,  under  the  force  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  Christ  died  in  our  stead,  he  admits  the  absolute  necessity  of 
the  death  of  Christ,  in  order  to  human  salvation,  contrary  to  all  the  prin- 
ciples he  elsewhere  lays  down,  and  in  refutation  of  his  own  objections 
and  those  of  his  followers  to  the  orthodox  view  of  the  death  of  our 
Saviour  as  being  the  only  means  by  which  mercy  could  be  dispensed  to 
mankind.  But  that  Christ  died  for  us  directly  as  a  substitute,  which  is 
still  the  point  denied,  is  to  be  fully  proved  from  those  scriptures,  in  which 
he  is  said  to  have  borne  the  'punishment  due  to  our  offences ;  and  this  being 
established,  it  puts  an  entire  end  to  all  quibbling  on  the  import  of  the 
Greek  prepositions. 

To  prove  this,  the  passages  of  Holy  Writ  are  exceedingly  numerous  ; 
but  it  will  be  more  satisfactory  to  select  a  few,  and  point  out  their  force, 
than  to  give  a  long  list  of  citations. 

Grotius  {De  Satisfaciione,)  thus  clearly  proves  that  the  Scriptures 
represent  our  sins  as  the  impulsive  cause  of  the  death  of  Christ : — 

"  Another  cause  which  moved  God  was  our  sins,  which  deserve  pu- 
nishment. Christ  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  Rom.  iv,  25.  Here 
the  apostle  uses  the  preposition  ^la  with  the  accusative  case,  which  with 
all  Greek  authors,  sacred  and  profane,  is  the  most  usual  manner  of 
expressing  an  impulsive  cause.  For  instance,  6\a  7avra,  *  because  of 
these  things  cometh  the  wrath  of  God  upon  the  children  of  disobedience,' 
Eph.  V,  6.  Indeed,  whenever  the  expression,  because  of  sins,  is  cou- 
pled with  the  mention  of  sufferings,  it  never  admits  of  any  other  inter 
pretation.  *  I  will  chastise  you  seven  times  because  of  your  sins,'  Lev. 
xxvi,  28.  '  Because  of  these  abominations  the  Lord  God  cast  them  out 
from  his  sight,'  Deut.  xviii,  12.  So  it  is  used  in  many  other  places  of  the 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  109 

sacred  writings,  and  nowhere  in  a  different  sense.  Tlie  expression,  for 
sins,  is  also  evidently  of  the  same  force,  whenever  it  is  connected  with 
sufferings,  as  in  the  example  following  :  '  Christ  died  for  our  sins,'  1  Cor. 
XV,  3.  'Christ  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,'  1  Peter  iii,  18.  'Christ 
gave  himself  for  our  sins,'  Gal.  i,  4.  '  Christ  offered  one  sacrifice  for 
sins,'  Heb.  x,  12.  In  all  which  places  we  have  either  virsp  or  itspi  with 
the  genitive  case.  But  Socinus  maintains,  that  in  all  these  places  a  final 
and  not  an  impulsive  cause  is  intended.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to 
assert,  that  the  Latin  pro  and  the  Greek  vifsp  never  denote  an  impul- 
sive, but  always  a  final  cause.  Many  examples  prove  the  latter  asser- 
tion to  be  untrue.  For  both  v^sp  and  'rspi  are  used  to  signify  no  less  an 
impulsive  than  a  final  cause.  The  Gentiles  are  said  to  praise  God  u^rsp 
sXe-iis  for  his  mercy,  Rom.  xv,  9.  Paul  says  thanks  are  given  vn'sp  r,ixuv 
for  us,  Eph.  i,  16.  And  u-rsp  -TravTwv  for  all;  Eph.  v,  20.  'We  pray 
you,'  vTTSp  xp^ifTou,  for  Christ,  2  Cor.  v,  20.  '  Great  is  my  glorying  for 
you,  vrrsp  ujawv,  2  Cor.  vii,  4,  ix,  2,  and  xii,  5.  '  Distresses  (u-rsp  XP*''''^^) 
for  Christ,'  2  Cor.  xii,  10.  'I  thank  God  (u-rr'sp  u,awv)  for  you,'  1  Cor. 
i,  4.  '  God  shall  reprove  all  the  ungodly  (rrspi  -n'avrwv  spywv  a<fsQs{ag) 
for  all  their  works  of  ungodliness,'  Jude  15.  In  the  same  manner,  the 
Latins  say,  to  give  or  render  thanks  (pro  beneficiis)  for  benefits,  as  often 
in  Cicero.  He  also  says,  '  to  take  vengeance  (pro  injuriis)  for  inju- 
ries ;'  '  to  suffer  punishment  (pro  magnitudine  sceleris)  for  the  greatness 
of  a  crime ;'  to  fear  torments  (pro  maleficiis)  for  evil  deeds.  Plautus, 
'  to  chastise  (pro  commerita  noxia)  for  faults  which  deserve  it.'  And 
Terence,  'to  take  vengeance  (pro  dictis  et  factis)  for  words  and  deeds.' 
Certainly,  in  all  these  places,  pro  does  not  signify  a  final,  but  an  impul- 
sive cause.  So,  when  Christ  is  said  to  have  suffered  and  died  ybr  sins,  the 
subject  will  not  allow  us,  as  Socinus  wishes,  to  understand  a  final  cause. 
Hence,  also,  as  the  Hebrew  particle  rro  denotes  an  antecedent  or  impul- 
sive cause,  (see  Psalm  xxxviii,  9,  and  many  other  places,)  the  words  of 
Isaiah  liii,  cannot  be  better  translated,  or  more  agreeably  with  other 
scriptures,  than  He  was  wounded  on  account  of  our  transgressions ;  he 
was  bruised  on  account  of  our  iniquities.  And  what  can  Romans  vi,  10, 
TTj  a(xapT<a  airs&a.v£]j,  denote,  but  that  he  died  on  account  of  sin?" 

Crellius,  who  attempted  an  answer  to  Grotius,  at  length  acknowledges 
sin  to  have  been  an  impulsive  cause  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  but  neu- 
tralizes the  admission  by  sophistry,  on  which  Bishop  Stillingfleet  has 
well  observed,  that  we  understand  not  an  impulsive  cause  in  so  remote 
a  sense,  as  though  our  sins  were  an  occasion  of  Christ's  dying,  so  that 
his  death  was  one  argument  among  many  others,  to  believe  his  doctrine/ 
the  behef  of  which  would  cause  men  to  leave  their  sins ;  but  we  con- 
tend for  a  nearer  and  more  proper  sense,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was 
primarily  intended  for  the  expiation  of  sins,  with  respect  to  God,  and 
not  to  us,  and  that  our  sins,  as  an  impulsive  cause,  are  to  be  considered 

2 


110  THEOIiOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  PART 

as  so  displeasing  to  God,  that  it  was  necessary,  for  the  vindication  of 
honour  and  the  deterring  the  world  from  sin,  that  no  less  a  sacrifice  of 
atonement  should  be  offered  than  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God.  The 
sufferings  of  Christ,  when  consf.  Ted  with  respect  to  our  sins,  are  to  be 
considered  as  a  'punishment ;  when  vith  respect  to  God,  as  being  de- 
signed to  expiate  them  as  a  sacrifice  of  atonement. 

It  is  thus  that  Christ  is  said  to  bear  our  sins.  "  Who  his  ownself 
bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,"  1  Peter  ii,  24,  where  the 
apostle  evidently  quotes  from  Isaiah  hii.  "  He  shall  bear  their  iniqui- 
ties." "  He  bore  the  sin  of  many."  The  same  expression  is  used  by 
St.  Paul,  Heb.  ix,  28,  "  So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins 
of  many."  Now  to  bear  sin  is,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  to  bear 
the  punishment  af  sin,  Levit.  xxii,  9 ;  Ezekiel  xviii,  20,  and  the  use 
of  the  compound  verb  ava(pspw,  by  both  apostles,  is  worthy  of  notice. 
St.  Peter  "  might  liave  said  simply  rivsyy.s,  he  bore  ;  but  wishing  at  the 
same  time  to  signify  his  being  lifted  up  on  the  cross,  he  said  avrivsyxs,  he 
bore  up,  meaning,  he  bore  by  going  up  to  the  cross."  (Grotius.)  St. 
Paul,  too,  uses  the  same  verb  with  reference  to  the  Levitical  sacrifices, 
which  were  carried  to  an  elevated  altar ;  and  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
Socinus  and  his  followers  cannot  deny  that  to  bear  sin,  in  Scripture  gene- 
rally, signifies  to  bear  the  punishment  of  sin  ;  but,  availing  themselves 
of  the  very  force  of  the  compound  verb  avaqjspw,  just  pointed  out,  they 
interpret  the  passage  in  St.  Peter  to  signify  the  bearing  up,  that  is,  the 
bearing  or  carrying  away  of  our  sins,  which,  according  to  them,  may  be 
effected  in  many  other  ways  than  by  a  vicarious  sacrifice.  To  this, 
Grotius  replies,  "  The  particle  olvol  will  not  admit  of  such  a  sense,  nor  is 
the  word  ever  so  used  by  any  Greek  writer.  In  the  New  Testament  it 
never  occurs  in  such  a  meaning."  It  is  also  decisive  as  to  the  sense 
in  which  St.  Peter  uses  the  phrase  to  bear  sin,  that  he  quotes  from  Isa. 
liii,  11,  "  For  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities,"  where  the  Hebrew  word, 
by  the  confession  of  all,  is  never  used  for  taking  away,  but  for  bearing 
a  burden,  and  is  employed  to  express  the  punishment  of  sin,  as  in  La- 
mentations V,  7,  "  Our  fathers  have  sinned,  and  are  not,  and  we  have 
borne  their  iniquities.^^ 

Similar  to  this  expression  of  bearing  sins,  and  equally  impracticable 
to  the  criticism  of  the  Socinians,  is  the  declaration  of  Isaiah  in  the  same 
chapter,  "  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for 
our  iniquities  ;"  and  then  to  show  in  what  sense  he  was  wounded  and 
bruised  ybr  our  transgressions,  he  adds,  "the  chastisement  of  our  peace 
was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed."  Now,  chastise- 
ment is  the  punishment  of  a  fault ;  but  the  suffering  person,  of  whom 
the  prophet  speaks,  is  declared  by  him  to  be  wholly  free  from  trans, 
gression ;  to  be  perfectly  and  emphatically  innocent.  This  prophecy 
is  applied  to  Christ  by  the  apostles,  whose  constant  doctrine  is  the  entire 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  Ill 

immaculateness  of  their  Master  and  Lord.  If  chastisement,  therefore, 
was  laid  upon  Christ,  it  could  not  be  on  account  of  faults  of  his  own ; 
his  sufferings  were  the  chastisement  of  our  faults,  the  price  of  our  peace, 
and  his  " stripes,"  another  punitive  foijression,  were  borne  by  him  for 
our  "  healing."  The  only  course  /w/hich  Socinus  and  bis  followers  have 
taken,  to  endeavour  to  escape  the  force  of  this  passage,  is  to  render  the 
word  not  chastisement,  but  affliction ;  in  answer  to  which,  Grotius  and 
subsequent  critics  have  abundantly  proved  that  it  is  used  not  to  signify 
affliction  of  any  kind ;  but  that  which  has  the  nature  of  'punishment. 
These  passages,  therefore,  prove  a  substitution,  a  suffering  in  our  stead. 
The  chastisement  of  offences  was  laid  upon  him,  in  order  to  our  peace ; 
and  the  offences  were  ours,  since  they  could  not  be  his  "  who  did  no 
sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth." 

The  same  view  is  presented  to  us  under  another,  and  even  still  more 
forcible  phrase,  in  the  6th  and  7th  verses  of  the  same  chapter.  "  All 
we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray,  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own 
way,  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  [literally,  hath  made  to  meet  on 
him]  the  iniqiiity  of  us  all ;  he  was  oppressed  and  he  was  afflicted." 
Bishop  Lowth  translates  this  passage,  "  and  the  Lord  hath  made  to  light 
upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all ;  it  was  exacted,  and  he  was  made  an- 
swerable." In  a  similar  manner,  several  former  critics,  {Vide  Poll 
Syjiop.j)  "he  put  or  fixed  together  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all;  it 
was  exacted,  and  he  was  afflicted."  This  sense  is  fully  established  by 
Grotius  against  Socinus,  and  by  Bishop  Stillingfleet  against  Crelhus,  and 
thus  the  passage  is  obviously  incapable  of  explanation,  except  by  allow- 
ing the  sufferings  and  death  of  our  Lord  to  be  vicarious.  Our  iniquities, 
that  is,  according  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  speaking,  their  punishment, 
are  made  to  meet  upon  him ;  they  are  fixed  together  and  laid  upon 
him  ;  the  penalty  is  exacted  from  him,  though  he  himself  had  incurred 
no  penalty  personally,  and,  therefore,  it  was  in  consequence  of  that 
vicarious  exaction  that  he  was  "  afflicted,"  was  "  made  answerable," 
and,  voluntarily  submitting,  "  he  opened  not  his  mouth." 

In  2  Cor.  v,  21,  the  apostle  uses  almost  the  same  language.  "For 
he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  [a  sin  offering]  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin ; 
that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  The  So- 
cinian  Improved  Version  has  a  note  on  this  passage  so  obscure  that  the 
point  is  evidently  given  up  in  despair.  Socinus  before  had  attempted 
an  elusive  interpretation,  which  requires  scarcely  an  effort  to  refute. 
By  Christ's  being  made  "  sin,"  he  would  understand  being  esteemed  a 
sinner  by  men.  But,  as  Grotius  observes,  {De  Satisfactione,)  neither 
is  the  Greek  word,  translated  sin,  nor  the  Hebrew  word,  answering  to  it, 
ever  taken  in  such  a  sense.  Beside,  the  apostle  has  attributed  this  act 
to  God  ;  it  was  he  who  made  him  to  be  sin ;  but  he  certainly  did  not 
cause  the  Jews  and  others  to  esteem  Christ  a  wicked  man.     On  the 

2 


112  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

contrary,  by  a  voice  from  heaven,  and  by  miracles,  he  did  all  that  was 
proper  to  prove  to  all  men  his  innocence.  Farther,  St.  Paul  places 
"  sin"  and  "  righteousness"  in  opposition  to  each  other — "  we  are  made 
the  righteousness  of  God,"  that  is,  are  justified  and  freed  from  Divine 
punishment ;  but,  in  order  to  this,  Christ  was  "  made  sin,"  or  bore  our 
punishment.  There  is  also  another  antithesis  in  the  apostle's  words — 
God  made  him  who  knew  no  sin,  and  consequently  deserved  no  punish- 
ment, to  be  sin  ;  that  is,  it  pleased  him  that  he  should  be  punished  ;  but 
Christ  was  innocent,  not  only  according  to  human  laws,  but  according 
to  the  law  of  God  ;  the  antithesis,  therefore,  requires  us  to  understand, 
that  he  bore  the  penalty  of  that  law,  and  that  he  bore  it  in  our  stead. 

How  explicitly  tlie  death  of  Christ  is  represented  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  penal,  which  it  could  not  be  in  any  other  way  than  by  his  taking 
our  place,  and  suffering  in  our  stead,  is  manifest  also  from  Galatians  iii, 
13,  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a 
curse  [an  execration]  for  us,  for  it  is  written.  Cursed  is  every  one  that 
hangeth  on  a  tree."  The  passage  in  Moses,  to  which  St.  Paul  refers, 
is  Deut.  xxi,  22,  23  :  "If  a  man  have  committed  a  sin  worthy  of  death, 
and  be  put  to  death,  and  they  hang  him  on  a  tree ;  his  body  shall  not 
remain  all  night  upon  the  tree,  but  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  bury  him  that 
day,  foj'  he  tliat  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God,  that  thy  land  be  not  de- 
filed." This  infamy  was  only  inflicted  upon  great  offenders,  and  was 
designed  to  show  the  light  in  which  the  person,  thus  exposed,  was  viewed 
by  God,— he  was  a  curse  or  execration.  On  this  the  remarks  of  Gro- 
tius  are  most  forcible  and  conclusive  : — "  Socinus  says,  that  to  be  an 
execration  means  to  be  under  the  punishment  of  execration,  which  is 
true.  For  xara^a.  every  where  denotes  punishment  proceeding  from  the 
sanction  of  law,  2  Peter  ii,  14;  Mark  xxv,  41.  Socinus  also  admits, 
that  the  cross  of  Christ  was  this  curse ;  his  cross,  therefore,  had  the 
nature  of  punishment,  which  is  what  we  maintain.  Perhaps  Socinus 
allows  tliat  the  cross  of  Christ  was  a  punishment,  because  Pilate,  as  a 
judge,  inflicted  it ;  but  this  does  not  come  up  to  the  intention  of  the 
apostle ;  for,  in  order  to  prove  that  Christ  was  made  obnoxious  to 
punishment,  he  cites  Moses,  who  expressly  asserts,  that  whoever  hangs 
on  a  tree,  according  to  the  Divine  law,  is  '  accursed  of  God,' — conse- 
quently,  in  the  words  of  the  apostle,  who  cites  this  place  of  Moses,  and 
refers  it  to  Christ,  we  must  supply  the  same  circumstance,  '  accursed  of 
God,''  as  if  he  had  said  Christ  was  made  accursed  of  God,  or  obnoxious 
to  the  highest  and  most  ignominious  punishment  '  for  us,  that  the  bless- 
ing of  Abraham  might  come  upon  the  Gentiles,'  &c.  For  when  the 
apostles  speak  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  reference  to  our  good,  they 
do  not  regard  the  acts  of  men  in  them,  but  the  act  of  God."  (De  SatiS" 
factione.) 

4.  "We  are  carried  still  farther  into  the  real  nature  and  design  of  the 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  113 

death  of  Christ,  by  those  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  which  connect  with 
it  propitiation,  atonement,  reconciliation,  and  the  making  peace  between 
God  and  man  ;  and  the  more  attentively  these  are  considered,  the  more 
unfounded  will  the  Socinian  notion  appear,  which  represents  the  death 
of  Christ  as,  indirectly  only,  a  benefit  to  us,  and  as  saving  us  from  our 
sins  and  their  punishment  only  as  it  is  a  motive  to  repentance  and 
virtue. 

To  propitiate  is  to  appease,  to  atone,  to  turn  away  the  wrath  of  an 
offended  person.  In  the  case  before  us  the  wrath  turned  away  is  the 
wrath  of  God  ;  the  person  making  the  propitiation  is  Christ ;  the  pro- 
pitiating offering  or  sacrifice  is  his  blood.  All  this  is  expressed,  in  most 
explicit  terms,  in  the  following  passages :  1  John  ii,  2,  "  And  he  is  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins."  1  John  iv,  10,  "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we 
loved  God  ;  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins."  Rom.  iii,  25,  "Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  pro- 
pitiation through  faith  in  his  hlood,^^  The  word  used  in  the  two  former 
passages  is  iXa(r|xoj ;  in  the  last  »Xao'T7)^;ov.  Both  are  from  the  verb 
iXa^xw,  so  often  used  by  Greek  writers  to  express  the  action  of  a  person, 
who,  in  some  appointed  way,  turned  away  the  wrath  of  a  deity ;  and, 
therefore,  cannot  bear  the  sense  which  Socinus  would  put  upon  it, — the 
destruction  of  sin.  This  is  not  supported  by  a  single  example  :  with  all 
Greek  authorities,  whether  poets,  historians,  or  others,  the  word  means 
to  propitiate,  and  is,  for  the  most  part,  construed  with  an  accusative  case, 
designating  the  person  whose  displeasure  is  averted.  {Grotius  De  Satis- 
factione.)  As  this  could  not  be  denied,  Crellius  comes  to  the  aid  of 
Socinus,  and  contends  that  the  sense  of  this  word  was  not  to  be  taken 
from  its  common  use  in  the  Greek  tongue  ;  but  from  the  Hellenistic  use 
of  it,  namely,  its  use  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  the  LXX, 
and  the  Apocrypha.  But  this  will  not  serve  him ;  for,  both  by  the  LXX 
and  in  the  Apocrypha  it  is  used  in  the  same  sense  as  in  the  Greek 
classic  writers.  Ezekiel  xliv,  27,  "He  shall  offer  his  sin  offering, 
(iXarffAov,)  saith  the  Lord  God  ;"  Ezekiel  xlv,  19,  "  And  the  priest  shall 
take  of  blood  of  the  sin  offering,  sfiXaCixs^."  Num.  v,  8,  "The  ram  of 
the  atonement,^''  xpio^  ts  iXatfjaiJ ;  to  which  may  be  added,  out  of  the 
Apocrypha,  2  Maccabees  iii,  33,  "  Now  as  the  high  priest  was  making 
an  atonement,"  iXaCfxov.  The  propitiatory  sense  of  the  word  CKad^og 
being  thus  fixed,  the  modorn  Socinians  have  conceded,  in  their  note  on 
John  ii,  2,  in  their  Improved  Version,  that  it  means  "  the  pacifying  of 
an  offended  party ;"  but  they  subjoin  that  Christ  is  a  propitiation,  be- 
cause "  by  his  Gospel  he  brings  sinners  to  repentance,  and  thus  averts 
the  Divine  displeasure."  The  concession  is  important ;  and  the  com- 
ment cannot  weaken  it,  because  of  its  absurdity  ;  for,  in  that  interpreta- 
tion of  propitiation,  Moses,  or  any  of  the  apostles,  or  any  minister  of 
the  Gospel  now,  who  succeeds  in  bringing  sinners  to  repentance,  is  as 
Vol.  II.  8 


114  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

truly  a  propitiation  for  sin  as  Christ  himself.  On  Rom.  iii,  25,  how- 
ever, the  authors  of  the  Improved  Version  continue  to  follow  their  mas- 
ter Socinus,  and  translate  the  passage,  "  whom  God  hath  set  forth  a 
propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood,"  "  whom  God  hath  set  forth  as 
a  mercy  seat,  in  his  own  blood  ;"  and  lay  great  stress  upon  this  render- 
ing, as  removing  "  that  countenance  to  the  doctrine  of  atonement  by 
vicarious  sufferings,"  which  the  common  translation  affords.  The  word 
iXa(fT7)^iov  is  used  in  the  Septuagiunt  version,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  to  express  the  mercy  seat  or  covering  of  the  ark.  But  so 
little  is  to  be  gained  by  taking  it  in  this  sense  in  this  passage,  that  this 
rendering  is  adopted  by  several  orthodox  commentators  as  expressing, 
by  a  figure,  or  rather  by  supplying  a  type  to  the  antitype,  in  a  very 
emphatic  manner,  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  atonement.  The  mercy 
seat  was  so  called,  because,  under  the  Old  Testament,  it  was  the  place 
where  the  high  priest,  on  the  feast  of  expiation,  sprinkled  the  blood  of 
the  sin  offerings,  in  order  to  make  an  atonement  for  himself  and  the 
whole  congregation ;  and,  since  God  accepted  the  offering  which  was 
then  made,  it  is,  for  this  reason,  accounted  the  medium  through  which 
God  showed  himself  propitious  to  the  people.  With  reference  to  this, 
Jesus  Christ  may  be  called  a  mercy  seat,  as  being  the  person  in  or 
through  whom  God  shows  himself  propitious  to  mankind.  And  as, 
under  the  law,  God  was  propitious  to  those  who  came  to  him  by  ap- 
pearing before  his  mercy  seat  with  the  blood  of  their  sin  offerings ;  so, 
under  the  Gospel  dispensation,  he  is  propitious  to  ihose  who  come  unto 
him  by  Jesus  Christ,  through  faith  in  that  blood  which  is  elsewhere 
called  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling"  which  he  shed  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  Some  able  critics  have,  however,  argued,  from  the  force  of  the 
context,  that  the  word  ought  to  be  taken  actively,  and  not  merely  de- 
claratively;  not  as  "a  propitiatory,"  but  as  a  ^^propitiation,"  which, 
says  Grotius,  "  is  shown  by  the  mention  which  is  afterward  made  of 
blood,  to  which  the  power  of  propitiation  is  ascribed."  Others  supply 
^ufjoa,  or  js^siov,  and  render  it  expiatory  sacrifice.  (Vide  Eisner  Obs, 
Schleusner  sub  voce.)  But,  whichever  of  these  renderings  be  adopted, 
the  same  doctrine  is  held  forth  to  us.  The  covering  of  the  ark  was 
rendered  a  propitiatory  only  by  the  blood  of  the  victims  sprinkled  before 
and  upon  it ;  and  when  the  apostle  says,  that  God  hath  set  forth  Jesus 
Christ  to  be  a  propitiatory,  he  immediately  adds,  having  the  ceremonies 
of  the  temple  in  his  view,  "  through  faith  in  his  blood."  The  text,  there- 
fore, contains  no  exhibition  of  any  means  of  obtaining  mercy  but  through 
the  blood  of  sacrifice,  according  to  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  "  without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  ;"  and  is 
in  strict  accordance  with  Ephesians  i,  7,  "  We  have  redemption  through 
his  blood,  the  remission  of  sins."  It  is  only  by  his  blood  that  Christ 
himself  reconciles  us  to  God. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  115 

Unable,  then,  as  they  who  deny  the  vicarious  nature  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  are  to  evade  the  testimony  of  the  above  passages  which  speak 
of  our  Lord  as  a  propitiation,  what  is  their  next  resource  ?  They  deny 
the  existence  of  wrath  in  God,  in  the  hope  of  proving  that  propitiation, 
in  a  proper  sense,  cannot  be  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  whatever  may  be 
the  force  of  the  mere  terms  which  the  sacred  writers  employ.  In  order 
to  give  plausibility  to  their  statement,  they  pervert  and  caricature  the 
opinion  of  the  orthodox,  and  argue  as  though  it  formed  a  part  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  propitiation  and  oblation  for  sin,  that  God  is  naturally  an 
implacable  and  vengeful  being,  only  made  placable  and  disposed  to  show 
mercy  by  satisfaction  being  made  to  his  displeasure  through  our  Lord's 
sufferings  and  death.  This  is  as  contrary  to  Scripture  as  it  is  to  the 
opinions  of  all  sober  persons  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  atone- 
ment. God  is  love ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  support  this 
truth,  to  assume  that  he  is  nothing  else.  He  has,  as  we  have  seen, 
other  attributes,  which  harmonize  \vith  this  and  with  each  other,  though 
assuredly  that  harmony  cannot  be  exhibited  by  any  who  deny  the  pro- 
pitiation for  sin  made  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Their  system,  therefore, 
obliges  them  to  deny  the  existence  of  some  of  the  attributes  of  God,  or 
to  explain  them  away. 

It  is  sufficient  to  show  that  there  is  not  only  no  implacability  in  God, 
but  a  most  tender  and  placable  affection  toward  the  sinning  human  race 
itself,  that  the  Son  of  God,  by  whom  tlie  propitiation  was  made,  was  the 
free  gift  of  the  Father  to  us.  This  is  the  most  eminent  proof  of  his  love, 
that  for  our  sakes,  and  that  mercy  might  be  extended  to  us,  "  he  spared 
not  his  own  Son ;  but  delivered  him  up  freely  for  us  all."  Thus  he  is 
the  fountmn  and  first  moving  cause  of  that  scheme  of  recovery  and  sal- 
vation, which  the  incarnation  and  death  of  our  Lord  brought  into  full 
and  efficient  operation.  The  question,  indeed,  is  not  whether  God  is 
love,  or  whether  he  is  of  a  placable  nature ;  in  that  we  are  agreed ; 
but  it  is,  whether  God  is  holy  and  just ;  whether  we,  his  creatures,  are 
under  law  or  not ;  whether  this  law  has  any  penalty,  and  whether  God, 
in  his  rectoral  character,  is  bound  to  execute  and  uphold  that  law. 
These  are  points  which  have  already  been  established,  and  as  the  justice 
of  God  is  punitive,  (for  if  it  is  not  punitive,  his  laws  are  a  dead  letter,) 
then  is  there  wrath  in  God ;  then  is  God  angry  with  the  wicked ;  then 
is  man,  as  a  sinner,  obnoxious  to  this  anger  ;  and  so  a  propitiation 
becomes  necessary  to  turn  it  away  from  him.  Nor  are  these  terms 
unscriptural ;  they  ate  used  in  the  New  Testament  as  emphatically  as 
in  the  Old,  though  in  a  special  sense,  a  revelation  of  the  iDercy  of  God 
to  man.  John  the  Baptist  declares  that,  if  any  man  believeth  not  on 
the  Son  of  God,  "  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  upon  him."  St.  Paul  de- 
clares, that  "the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all 
ungodUness  and  unrighteousness  of  men."     The  day  of  judgment  is. 


116  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

with  reference  to  the  ungodly,  said  to  be  "  the  day  of  wrath ;"  God  is 
called  "  a  consuming  fire ;"  and  as  such,  is  the  object  of  "  reverence 
and  godly  fear."  Nor  is  this  his  displeasure  light,  and  the  consequences 
of  it  a  trifling  and  temporary  inconvenience.  When  v^^e  only  regard 
the  consequences  which  have  followed  sin  in  society,  from  the  earliest 
ages,  and  in  every  part  of  the  world,  and  add  to  these  the  many  direct 
and  fearful  inflictions  of  punishment  which  have  proceeded  from  the 
"  Judge  of  the  whole  earth,"  to  use  the  language  of  Scripture,  "  our 
flesh  may  well  tremble  because  of  his  judgments."  But  when  we  look 
at  the  future  state  of  the  wicked,  as  it  is  represented  in  Scripture, 
though  expressed  generally,  and  surrounded  as  it  is  with  the  mystery 
of  a  world,  and  a  condition  of  being,  unknown  to  us  in  the  present  state, 
all  evils  which  history  has  crowded  into  the  lot  of  man  appear  insig- 
nificant  in  comparison  of  banishment  from  God — separation  from  the 
good — pubhc  condemnation — torment  of  spirit — "  weeping,  wailing,  and 
gnashing  of  teeth" — "  everlasting  destruction" — "  everlasting  fire." 
Let  men  talk  ever  so  much,  and  eloquently,  of  the  pure  benevolence 
of  God,  they  cannot  abohsh  the  facts  recorded  in  the  history  of  human 
suffering  in  this  world  as  the  effect  of  transgression ;  nor  can  they  dis- 
charge these  fearful  communications  from  the  pages  of  the  book  of 
GoD.  They  cannot  be  criticised  away  ;  and  if  it  is  "  Jesus  who  saves 
us  from  this  wrath  to  come,"  that  is,  from  those  effects  of  the  wrath  of 
God  which  are  to  come,  then,  but  for  him,  we  should  have  been  liable 
to  them.  That  principle  in  God,  from  which  such  effects  follow,  the 
Scriptures  call  wrath ;  and  they  who  deny  the  existence  of  wrath  in 
God,  deny,  therefore,  the  Scriptures. 

It  by  no  means  follows,  however,  that  those  who  thus  bow  to  in- 
spired authority,  must  interpret  wrath  to  be  a  passion  in  God;  or 
that,  though  we  conclude  the  awful  attribute  of  his  justice  to  require 
satisfaction,  in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  the  guilty,  we  afford  reason 
to  any  to  charge  us  with  attributing  vengeful  affections  to  the  Divine 
Being.  « Our  adversaries,"  says  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  "  first  make 
opinions  for  us,  and  then  show  that  they  are  unreasonable.  They  first 
suppose  that  anger  in  God  is  to  be  considered  as  a  passion,  and  that 
passion  a  desire  of  revenge,  and  then  tell  us,  that  if  we  do  not  prove 
that  this  desire  of  revenge  can  be  satisfied  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
then  we  can  never  prove  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  be  true;  whereas 
we  do  not  mean,  by  God's  anger,  any  such  passion,  but  the  just  decla- 
ration of  God's  will  to  punish,  upon  our  provocation  of  him  by  our  sins ;  we 
do  not  make  the  design  of  the  satisfaction  to  be  that  God  may  please  him- 
self in  the  revenging  the  sins  of  the  guilty  upon  the  most  innocent  person, 
because  we  make  the  design  of  punishment  not  to  be  the  satisfaction  of 
anger  as  a  desire  of  revenge,  but  to  be  the  vindication  of  the  honour 
and  rights  of  the  ofl^ended  person  by  such  a  way  as  he  himself  shall 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  117 

judge  satisfactory  to  the  ends  of  his  government."  (Discourse  on  the 
Sufferings  of  Christ.) 

This  is  a  sufficient  answer ;  and  we  now  proceed  with  those  passages 
of  Scripture,  the  phraseology  of  which  still  farther  establishes  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  atonement.  ,  To  those,  in  which  Christ  is  called  a 
propitiation,  we  add  those  which  speak  of  reconciliation  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  peace  between  God  and  man  as  the  design  and  direct 
effect  of  his  death.  So  Col.  i,  19,  22,  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that 
in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell,  and  having  made  peace  through  the 
blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself;  by  him 
I  say,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven ;  and  you 
that  were  some  time  ahenated  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked 
works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled,  in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through 
deaths  Romans  v,  10,  11,  "For  if  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were 
reconciled  to  God,  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled, 
we  shall  be  saved  by  his  hfe.  And  not  only  so,  but  we  also  joy  in  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have  now  received  the 
atonement.'^  2  Cor.  v,  18,  19,  "And  all  tilings  are  of  God,  who  hath 
reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry 
of  reconciUation."  The  verbs  translated  to  reconcile  are  xaTaXXatftfw 
and  a'jfoxa.raXkcKidu),  which  signify  a  change  from  one  state  to  another; 
but,  in  these  passages,  the  connection  determines  the  nature  of  the  change 
to  be  a  change  from  enmity  to  friendship.  In  Rom.  v,  11,  the  noun 
xaraXkayy]  is  rendered,  in  our  translation,  atonement ;  but  it  is  contended, 
that  it  ought  to  have  been  rendered  reconciliation,  unless  we  admit  the  pri- 
mitive meaning  of  the  English  word  atonement,  which  is  being  at  one,  to  be 
affiuxed  to  it.  It  was  not  in  this  sense  certainly  that  the  word  atonement 
was  used  by  the  translators,  and  it  is  now  fixed  in  its  meaning,  and,  in 
common  language,  signifies  propitiation  in  the  proper  and  sacrificial 
sense.  It  is  not,  however,  at  all  necessary  to  stand  upon  the  rendering 
of  xaraXkay'/]  in  this  passage  by  the  term  atonement.  We  lose  nothing, 
as  we  shall  see,  and  the  Socinians  gain  nothing  by  rendering  it  recon- 
ciliation, which,  indeed,  appears  more  agreeable  to  the  context.  The 
word  atonement  would  have  been  a  proper  substitute  for  *^  propitiation^^ 
in  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  it  occurs,  as  being 
more  obvious  in  its  meaning  to  the  common  reader ;  and  because  the 
original  word  answers  to  the  Hebrew  iSD,  which  is  used  for  the  legal 
atonements ;  "  but  as  the  reconciliation  which  we  have  received  through 
Christ  was  the  effect  of  atonement  made  for  us  by  his  death,  words 
which  denote  the  former  simply,  as  xaraXkayr],  and  words  from  the 
same  root,  may,  when  applied  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  be  not  unfitly 
expressed  by  the  latter,  as  containing  in  them  its  full  import."  {Magee's 
Discourses.)  We  may  observe,  also,  that  if,  as  it  is  contended,  we  must 
render  Romans  v,  11,  "by  whom  we  have  received  the  reconciliation,^^ 

2 


1  1 S  THEOLOGICAL    DfSTITlTES.  [PAKT 

the  preceding  veFse  most  aot  be  overlooketl,  which  declares  "  when  we 
were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God,  by  the  death  of  his  Son^" 
which  death  we  have  just  seen  is  in  other  passages  called  a  •*  propitia- 
tion"  or  ••  atonement ;"  and  so  the  apostle  conveys  no  other  idea  by  the 
term  reconcihalMB,  than  reconcLIiadon  through  an  atonement. 

The  expresaoos  •reconciliation''  and  "making  peace,*'  necessarily 
suppose  a  previous  state  of  hostility  between  God  and  man,  which  is 
reciprocal.  This  is  swnetimes  called  enmity,  a  term  as  it  respects  God, 
rather  unlbrtunatey  smce  enmity  is  almost  fixed  in  oar  language  to  sig. 
nily  a  malignant  and  revengeful  feeling.  Of  this,  the  oppu^ners  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  atcHiement  have  availed  themselves  to  argue,  that  as 
there  can  be  no  such  afiection  in  the  Divine  nature,  theretbre,  recon- 
ciliatioQ  in  Scripture  does  not  mean  the  reconciliation  of  Grod  to  man, 
bat  of  man  to  God,  whose  enmity  die  example  and  teaching  of  Christ 
they  tell  us  are  very  effectual  to  subdue.  It  is,  indeed,  a  sad  and 
faambfing  truth,  and  one  which  the  Socioians  in  their  discussions  on  the 
natural  innocence  of  man  are  not  willing  to  admit,  that  by  the  infection 
of  sin  "  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  to  God."  that  human  nature  is  naalig- 
nantly  hostile  to  God,  and  to  the  control  of  his  law  ;  but  this  is  far  from 
expressing  the  whole  of  that  relation  of  man,  in  which,  in  Scripture  he 
is  said  to  be  at  enmity  with  God,  and  so  to  need  a  reconciliation. — the 
making  of  peace  between  God  and  him.  That  relation  is  a  lesal  one, 
as  that  of  a  sovereign  in  his  judicial  capacity  and  a  criminal  who  has 
violated  his  laws,  and  risen  up  against  his  authority,  and  who  i-  'h°-^. 
fore,  treated  as  an  enemy.  The  word  ryipog  is  used  in  thif  -  : 
SQQse,  both  in  the  Greek  writers  and  in  the  New  Testament.  So,  in 
Romans  si,  2S,  the  Jews  rejected  and  punished  for  refusing  the  Gospel 
are  said  by  the  apostle,  "  as  concCTnin^  the  Gospel"  to  be  "  enemies 
for  your  sakes :''  treated  and  accounted  such  :  '•  but,  as  touching  the 
election,  they  are  beloved  tor  the  fathers'  sakes."  In  the  same  epistle, 
chap.  V,  10,  the  term  is  used  precisely  in  the  same  sense,  and  that  with 
reference  to  the  "  reconciliation"  by  Christ, — "  for  if  when  we  were 
enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,'' — that  is, 
when  we  were  objects  of  the  Divine  judicial  displeasure,  accounted  as 
enemies,  and  hable  to  be  capitally  treated  as  such.  Enmity,  in  the 
sense  of  mahgnity  and,  the  sentiment  of  hatred,  is  added  to  this  relation 
in  Ae  case  of  man  :  but  it  is  no  part  of  the  relation  itself:  it  is  rather  a 
caose  of  it,  as  it  is  one  of  the  actings  of  a  corrupt  nature  which  render 
man  obnoxiots  to  the  displeasure  and  the  penalty  of  the  law  of  God, 
and  frface  him  in  the  condition  of  an  enemy.  It  is  this  judicial  variance 
and  oppoaitioa  between  God  and  man,  which  is  referred  to  in  the  term 
•*  reconciliation,"  and  in  the  phrase  «  making  peace,"  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
and  the  hostility  is,  therefore,  in  its  own  nature  mutual. 

But  that  there  is  no  truth  in  the  notion  just  refuted,  viz.  that  recon- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  119 

ciliation  means  no  more  than  our  laying  aside  our  enmity  to  God,  may 
also  be  shown  from  several  express  passages.  The  firs-t  is  the  passage 
we  have  above  cited,  Romans  v,  11,  "For  if  when  we  were  enemies 
we  were  reconciled  to  God."  Here  the  act  of  reconciUng  is  ascribed 
to  God  and  not  to  us ;  but  if  tliis  reconcihation  consisted  in  the 
laying  aside  our  own  enmity,  the  act  would  be  ours  alone ;  and, 
farther,  that  it  could  not  be  the  laying  aside  of  our  enmity,  is  clear  from 
the  text,  which  speaks  of  reconciliation  while  we  were  yet  enemies. 
"  The  reconciliation  spoken  of  here,  is  not,  as  Socinus  and  his  followers 
have  said,  our  conversion.  For  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  benefit 
obtained  for  us  previous  to  our  conversion,  appears  evident  from  the 
opposite  members  of  the  two  sentences.  That  of  the  former  runs  thus  : 
'  much  more  being  justified,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him,' 
and  that  of  the  latter,  '  much  more  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved 
by  his  Xi^e.^  The  apostle  argues  from  the  greater  to  the  less.  If  God 
were  so  benign  to  us  before  our  conversion,  what  may  we  not  expect 
from  him  now  we  are  converted  ?  To  reconcile  here  cannot  mean  to 
convert ;  for  the  apostle  evidently  speaks  of  something  greatly  remark- 
able in  the  act  of  Christ ;  but  to  convert  sinners  is  nothing  remarkable, 
since  none  but  sinners  can  be  ever  converted ;  whereas  it  was  a  rare 
and  singular  thing  for  Christ  to  die  for  sinners,  and  to  reconcile  sinners 
to  God  by  his  death,  when  there  have  been  but  very  few  good  men, 
who  have  died  for  their  friends.  In  the  next  place,  conversion  is  referred 
more  properly  to  his  glorious  life,  than  to  his  shameful  death ;  but  this 
reconciliation  is  attributed  to  his  death,  as  contradistmguished  from  his 
glorious  life,  as  is  evident  from  the  antithesis  contained  in  the  two 
verses.  Beside,  it  is  from  the  latter  benefit  that  we  learn  the  nature 
of  the  former.  The  latter,  which  belongs  only  to  the  converted,  con- 
sists of  the  peace  of  God,  and  salvation  from  ^vrath,  verse  9,  10.  This, 
the  apostle  afterward  calls,  receiving  the  reconciliation,  and  what  is  it 
to  receive  the  reconcihation,  but  to  receive  the  remission  of  sins  ?  Acts 
X,  43.  To  receive  conversion  is  a  mode  of  speaking  entirely  unknown. 
If,  then,  to  receive  the  reconciliation  is  to  receive  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  in  effect  to  be  delivered  from  wrath  or  punishment,  to  be  recon- 
ciled must  have  a  corresponding  signification."  {Vide  Grotius  De 
Satisfactione.) 

2  Cor.  V,  19,  "  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself, 
not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them."  Here,  the  manner  of  this 
reconcihation  is  expressly  said  to  be  not  our  laying  aside  our  enmity, 
but  the  non -imputation  of  our  trespasses  to  us  by  God,  in  other  words, 
the  pardoning  our  offences  and  restoring  us  to  favour.  The  promise, 
on  God's  part,  to  do  this  is  expressive  of  his  pre\ious  reconcihation  to 
the  world  by  the  death  of  Christ ;  for  our  actual  reconcihation  is  distin- 
guished from  this  by  what  follows,  and  hath  "  committed  to  us  the 

2 


120  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ministry  of  reconciliation,"  by  virtue  of  which  all  men  were,  by  the 
apostles,  entreated  and  besought  to  be  reconciled  to  God.  The  reason, 
too,  of  this  reconciliation  of  God  to  the  world,  by  virtue  of  which  he 
promises  not  to  impute  sin,  is  grounded  by  the  apostle,  in  the  last  verse 
of  the  chapter,  not  upon  the  laying  aside  of  enmity  by  men,  but  upon 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  : — "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  (a  sin  offer, 
ing)  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  him." 

Ephesians  ii,  16,  *<  And  that  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God  in  one 
body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity  thereby."  Here  the  act  of 
reconciling  is  attributed  to  Christ.  Man  is  not  spoken  of  as  reconciling 
himself  to  God,  but  Christ  is  said  to  reconcile  Jews  and  Gentiles  toge- 
ther,  and  both  to  God,  "  by  his  cross."  Thus,  says  the  apostle,  "  he  is 
our  peace;"  but  in  what  manner  is  the  peace  effected?  Not,  in  the 
first  instance,  by  subduing  the  enmity  of  man's  heart,  but  by  removing 
the  enmity  of  "  the  law."  "  Having  abolished  in,  or  by  his  flesh,  the 
enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments."  The  ceremonial  law  only  is 
here,  probably,  meant ;  for  by  its  abolition  through  its  fulfilment  in 
Christ  the  enmity  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  was  taken  away  ;  but  still 
it  was  not  only  necessary  to  reconcile  Jew  and  Gentile  together,  but  to 
"  reconcile  both  unto  God."  This  he  did  by  the  same  act ;  abolishing 
the  ceremonial  law  by  becoming  the  antitype  of  all  its  sacrifices ;  and 
thus,  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,  effecting  the  reconcihation  of  all  to 
God,  "  slaying  the  enmity  by  his  cross,"  taking  away  whatever  hindered 
the  reconciliation  of  the  guilty  to  God,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not 
enmity  and  hatred  to  God  in  the  human  mind  only,  but  that  judicial 
hostility  and  variance  which  separated  God  and  man  as  Judge  and 
criminal.  The  feeble  criticism  of  Socinus,  on  this  passage,  in  which  he 
has  been  followed  by  his  adherents  to  this  day,  is  thus  answered  by 
Grotius.  "  In  this  passage,  the  dative  ©sw,  to  God,  can  only  be  go- 
verned by  the  verb  wn'oxoiraKXa^jj^  that  he  might  reconcile ;  for  the 
interpretation  of  Socinus,  which  makes  <to  God'  stand  by  itself,  or 
that  to  reconcile  to  God  is  to  reconcile  them  among  themselves,  that 
they  might  serve  God,  is  distorted  and  without  example.  Nor  is  the 
argument  valid  which  is  drawn  from  thence,  that  in  this  place  St.  Paul 
properly  treats  of  the  peace  made  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  ;  for  nei- 
ther does  it  follow,  from  this  argument,  that  it  was  beside  his  purpose  to 
mention  the  peace  made  for  each  with  God.  For  the  two  opposites 
which  are  joined,  are  so  joined  among  themselves,  that  they  should  be 
primarily  and  chiefly  joined  by  that  bond ;  for  they  are  not  united  among 
themselves,  except  by  and  for  that  bond.  Gentiles  and  Jews,  therefore, 
are  made  friends  among  themselves  by  friendship  with  God."  (Vide 
Grotius  De  Satisfactione.) 

Here  also  a  critical  remark  will  be  appropriate.    The  above  passages 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  121 

will  show  how  falsely  it  has  been  asserted  that  God  is  nowhere,  in 
Scripture,  said  to  be  reconciled  to  us,  and  that  they  only  declare  that  we 
are  reconciled  to  God  ;  but  the  fact  is,  that  the  very  phrase  of  our  being 
recoficiled  to  God,  imports  the  turning  away  his  wrath  from  us.  Whitby 
observes,  on  the  words  xaraWaTrsiv  and  xaraXXayr],  "  that  they  natu- 
rally import  the  reconciliation  of  one  that  is  angry  or  displeased  with  us, 
both  in  profane  and  Jewish  writers."  {See  also  Hammond,  Rosenmuller, 
and  Schleusner.)  When  the  Philistines  suspected  that  David  would 
appease  the  anger  of  Saul,  by  becoming  their  adversary,  they  said, 
«  Wherewith  should  he  reconcile  himself  to  his  master  ?  Should  it  not 
be  with  the  heads  of  these  men?" — not,  surely,  how  shall  he  remove  his 
own  anger  against  his  master ;  but  how  shall  he  remove  his  master's 
anger  against  him  ;  how  shall  he  restore  himself  to  his  master's  favour? 
"  If  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that  thy 
brother  hath  aught  against  thee,'^  not  that  thou  hast  aught  against  thy 
brothe?',  "  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother ;"  that  is,  appease  and  con- 
ciliate him  :  so  that  the  words,  in  fact,  import  "  see  that  thy  brother  be 
reconciled  to  thee,^'  since  that  which  goes  before  is  not  that  he  hath  done 
thee  an  injury,  but  thou  him.  (7) 

Thus,  then,  for  us  to  be  reconciled  to  God  is  to  avail  ourselves  of  the 
means  by  which  the  anger  of  God  toward  us  is  to  be  appeased,  which 
the  New  Testament  expressly  declares  to  be  generally  "  the  sin  offer- 
ing" of  him  "  who  knew  no  sin,"  and  instrumentally,  as  to  each  indi- 
vidual personally,  "  faith  in  his  blood." 

A  general  objection  of  the  Socinians  to  this  doctrine  of  reconciliation 
may  be  easily  answered.  When  we  speak  of  the  necessity  of  Christ's 
atonement,  in  order  to  man's  forgiveness,  we  are  told,  that  we  represent 
the  Deity  as  implacable ;  when  we  rebut  that  by  showing  that  it  was 
his  very  placability,  his  boundless  and  ineffable  love  to  men,  which  sent 
his  Son  into  the  world  to  die  for  the  sins  of  mankind,  they  rejoin,  with 
their  leaders,  Socinus  and  Crellius,  that  then  "  God  was  reconciled  be- 
fore he  sent  his  Son,  and  that,  therefore,  Christ  did  not  die  to  reconcile 
God  to  us."  The  answer  plainly  is,  that  in  this  objection,  they  either 
mean  that  God  had,  from  the  placability  and  compassion  of  his  nature, 
determined  to  be  reconciled  to  offenders  upon  the  sending  his  Son,  or 
that  he  was  actually  reconciled  when  our  Lord  was  sent.  The  first  is 
what  we  contend  for,  and  is  in  no  wise  inconsistent  with  the  submission 
of  our  Lord  to  death,  since  that  was  in  pursuance  of  the  merciful  ap- 
pointment and  decree  of  the  Father  ;  and  the  necessary  medium  by 
which  this  placability  of  God  could  honourably  and  consistently  show 

(7)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  say  some,  derive  this  mode  of  expres- 
sion from  the  force  of  the  Hebrew  word  ns*]  transferred  to  the  Greek  word ;  but 
Palairet,  Grotius,  and  Schleusner,  give  instances  of  the  use  of  the  term,  in  the 
same  signification,  in  writers  purely  Greek. 

2 


122  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

itself  in  actual  reconciliation,  or  the  pardon  of  sin.  That  God  was  not 
actually  reconciled  to  man,  that  is,  that  he  did  not  forgive  our  offences, 
independent  of  the  death  of  Christ,  is  clear,  for  then  sin  would  have 
been  forgiven  before  it  was  committed,  and  remission  of  sins  could  not 
have  been  preached  in  the  name  of  Christ,  nor  could  a  ministry  of 
reconciliation  have  been  committed  to  the  apostles.  The  reconciliation 
of  God  to  man  is,  throughout,  a  conditional  one,  and,  as  in  all  condi- 
tional processes  of  this  kind,  it  has  three  stages.  The  first  is  when  the 
party  offended  is  disposed  to  admit  of  terms  of  agreement,  which,  in 
God,  is  matter  of  pure  grace  and  favour ;  the  second  is  when  he  de- 
clares his  acceptance  of  the  mediation  of  a  third  person,  and  that  he  is 
so  satisfied  with  what  he  hath  done  in  order  to  it,  that  he  appoints  it  to 
be  announced  to  the  offender,  that  if  the  breach  continues,  the  fault  lies 
wholly  upon  himself;  the  third  is  when  the  offender  accepts  of  the 
terms  of  agreement  which  are  offered  to  him,  submits,  and  is  received 
into  favour.  "  Thus,"  says  Bishop  Stilhngfleet,  "  upon  the  death  and 
sufferings  of  Christ,  God  declares  that  he  is  so  satisfied  with  what  Christ 
hath  done  and  suffered  in  order  to  the  reconciliation  between  himself 
and  us,  that  he  now  pubUshes  remission  of  sins  to  the  world,  upon  those 
terms  which  the  Mediator  hath  declared  by  his  own  doctrine  and  the 
apostles  he  sent  to  preach  it.  But  because  remission  of  sins  doth  not 
immediately  follow  upon  the  death  of  Christ,  without  any  supposition  of 
any  act  on  our  part,  therefore  the  state  of  favour  doth  commence  from 
the  performance  of  the  conditions  which  are  required  of  us."  [Discourse 
on  the  Sufferings  of  Christ.  See  also  Grotius  De  Satisfactione,  cap.  vii.) 
Whoever  considers  these  obvious  distinctions  will  have  an  ample  answer 
to  the  Socinian  objection. 

5.  To  the  texts  which  speak  of  reconciliation  with  God  as  illustrative 
of  the  nature  of  the  death  of  Christ  for  us,  we  add  those  which  speak 
o^  "  redemption  ;^^  either  by  employing  that  word  itself,  or  others  of  the 
same  import.  Rom.  iii,  24,  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  Gal.  iii,  13,  "Christ  hath 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us." 
Ephesians  i,  7,  "  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace."  1  Peter  i, 
18,  19,  "Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  conversation  received 
by  tradition  from  j^our  fathers ;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ, 
as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish,  and  without  spot."  1  Cor.  vi,  19,  20, 
"  And  ye  are  not  your  own,  for  ye  are  bought  with  a  price." 

By  redemption,  those  who  deny  the  atonement  made  by  Christ  wish 
to  understand  deliverance  merely,  regarding  only  the  effect,  and  studi- 
ously putting  out  of  sight  the  cause  from  which  it  flows.  But  the  very 
terms  used  in  the  above  cited  passages,  "  to  redeem,"  and  "  to  be  bought 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  123 

with  a  price,"  will  each  be  found  to  refute  this  notion  of  a  gratuitous 
deliverance,  whether  from  sin  or  punishment,  or  both.  Our  English 
word  to  redeem,  hterally  means  to  buy  back ;  and  Xulpuw,  to  redeem, 
and  a'7roXu7pw(j'if,  redemption,  are,  both  in  Greek  writers  and  in  the  New 
Testament,  used  for  the  act  of  setting  free  a  captive,  by  paying  Xu7pov, 
a  ransom  or  redemption  price.  But,  as  Grotius  (Z>e  Satisfactions,  cap. 
viii)  has  fully  shown,  by  reference  to  the  use  of  the  words  both  in 
sacred  and  profane  writers,  redemption  signifies  not  merely  the  libera- 
tion of  captives,  but  deliverance  from  exile,  death,  and  every  other  evil 
from  which  we  may  be  freed ;  and  Xu7pov  signifies  every  thing  which 
satisfies  another,  so  as  to  effect  this  deliverance.  The  nature  of  this 
redemption,  or  purchased  deliverance,  (for  it  is  not  gratuitous  liberation, 
as  will  presently  appear,)  is,  therefore,  to  be  ascertained  by  the  circum- 
stances of  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it.  The  subjects  in  the  case 
before  us  are  sinful  men.  They  are  under  guilt, — under  "  the  curse  of 
the  law,"  the  servants  of  sin,  under  the  power  and  dominion  of  the 
devil,  and  "  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will" — liable  to  the  death  of  the 
body  and  to  eternal  punishment.  To  the  whole  of  this  case,  the  redemp- 
tion, the  purchased  dehverance  of  man,  as  proclaimed  in  the  Gospel, 
applies  itself.  Hence,  in  the  above  cited  and  other  passages,  it  is  said 
"  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,"  in 
opposition  to  guilt ;  redemption  from  "  the  curse  of  the  law ;"  deliver- 
ance from  sin,  that  "  we  should  be  set  free  from  sin ;"  deliverance  from 
the  power  of  Satan ;  from  death,  by  a  resurrection ;  and  from  future 
"  wrath,"  by  the  gift  of  eternal  life.  Throughout  the  whole  of  this 
glorious  doctrine  of  our  redemption  from  these  tremendous  evils  there 
is,  however,  in  the  New  Testament,  a  constant  reference  to  the  Xu7pov, 
the  redemption  price,  which  Xu7pov  is  as  constantly  declared  to  be  the 
death  of  Christ,  which  he  endured  in  our  stead.  Matt,  xx,  28,  "  The 
Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  (Xu7pov)  for  many."  1  Tim. 
ii,  6,  "  Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  (av7iXu7pov)  for  all."  Ephesians  i, 
7,  "  In  whom  we  have  redemption  {jriv  a'7roXurpw(7'jv)  through  his  blood." 
1  Peter  i,  18,  19,  "Ye  were  not  redeemed  (sXu7pw^r)7s)  with  corruptible 
things,  as  silver  and  gold — but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ." 
That  deliverance  of  man  from  sin,  misery,  and  all  other  penal  evils  of 
his  transgression  which  constitutes  our  redemption  by  Christ  is  not, 
therefore,  a  gratuitous  deliverance,  granted  without  a  consideration,  as 
an  act  of  mere  prerogative ;  the  ransom,  the  redemption  price,  was 
exacted  and  paid  ;  one  thing  was  given  for  another, — the  precious  blood 
of  Christ  for  captive  and  condemned  men.  Of  the  same  import  are 
those  passages  which  represent  us  as  having  been  "  bought,"  or  "  pur- 
chased" by  Christ.  St.  Peter  speaks  of  those  "who  denied  the  Lord 
that  bought  them,"  (rov  a7opao'av7a  au7ou^,)  and  St.  Paul,  in  the  passage 
icited  above,  says  "  ye  are  bought  (riyo^cctf&rils)  with  a  price ;"  which 

2 


124  THEOLOGICAL  L\STITUTES.  [PART 

price  is  expressly  said  by  St.  John,  Rev.  v,  9,  to  be  the  blood  of  Christ 
— "  'JThou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  (Tj^'opao'aj,  hast  'pur- 
chased us)  by  thy  blood." 

The  means  by  which  it  has  been  attempted  to  evade  the  force  of  these 
most  express  statements  of  the  inspired  writers  remain  to  be  pointed  out 
and  refuted. 

The  first  is  to  allege  that  the  term  redemption  is  sometimes  used  for 
simple  deliverance,  where  no  price  or  consideration  is  supposed  to  be 
given  ;  as  when  we  read  in  the  Old  Testament  of  God's  redeeming  his 
people  from  trouble,  from  death,  from  danger,  where  no  price  is  men- 
tioned ;  and  when  Moses  is  called.  Acts  vii,  35,  XuTpwT*]^,  a  redeemer, 
because  he  deUvered  his  people  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt.  But  the 
occasional  use  of  the  term  in  an  improper  and  allusive  sense  cannot  be 
urged  against  its  strict  and  proper  signification  universally ;  and  grant- 
ing the  occasional  use  of  it  in  an  improper  sense,  it  will  still  remain  to 
be  proved  that,  in  the  passages  just  adduced  out  of  the  New  Testament, 
it  is  used  in  this  manner.  The  propriety  of  words  is  not  to  be  receded 
from,  but  for  weighty  reasons.  The  strict  meaning  of  the  verb  to 
redeem,  is  to  deliver  from  captivity,  by  paying  a  ranson  ;  it  is  extended 
to  signify  deUverance  from  evils  of  various  kinds  by  the  uitervention  of 
a  valuable  consideration ;  it  is,  in  some  cases,  used  for  deliverance  by 
any  means ;  the  context  of  the  passage,  in  which  the  word  occurs,  and 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  must,  therefore,  be  resorted  to  in  order  to 
determine  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used.  Fair  criticism  requires 
that  we  take  words  in  their  proper  sense,  unless  a  sufiicient  reason  can 
be  shown,  from  their  connection,  to  the  contrary ;  and  not  that  we  are 
first  to  take  them  in  their  improper  sense  until  the  proper  sense  is  forced 
upon  us  by  argument.  This,  however,  is  not  a  case  of  argument,  but 
of  the  obvious  sense  of  the  words  used ;  for  if  deliverances,  in  some 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  trouble  and  danger  are  spoken  of 
as  a  redemption,  without  reference  to  a  XuTpov,  or  ransom,  our  redemp- 
tion by  Christ  is  not  so  spoken  of;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  XuTpov,  or 
redemption  price,  is  repeatedly,  expressly,  and  emphatically  mentioned, 
and  that  price  is  said  to  be  "  the  blood  of  Christ."  When  Greek  writers 
speak  of  aifma  and  Xurpa,  with  reference  to  the  release  of  a  prisoner, 
nothing  could  be  more  absurd,  than  to  attempt  to  resolve  these  terms 
into  a  figurative  meaning ;  because  their  mention  of  the  price,  and  the 
act  of  paying  it,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  paid,  all 
show  that  they  use  the  terms  in  the  proper  and  strict  sense.  For  the 
same  reason  must  they  be  so  understood  in  the  New  Testament,  since 
the  price  itself,  which  constitutes  the  Xurpov,  and  the  person  who  paid  it, 
and  the  circumstances  under  which  the  transaction  took  place,  are  all 
given  with  as  minute  an  historical  precision,  and  a  figurative  interpre- 
tation  would  involve  us  in  as  great  an  absurdity  in  the  one  case  as  the 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  125 

other.  We  apply  this  to  the  case  of  Moses  being  called  a  redeemer, 
with  reference  to  his  delivering  Israel  from  Egypt,  and  remark,  that  the 
improper  use  of  that  term  may  be  allowed  in  the  case  of  Moses,  because 
he  is  nowhere  said  to  have  redeemed  Israel  by  his  death,  nor  by  his 
hlood,  nor  to  have  purchased  the  Jews  with  a  price,  nor  to  have  given 
himself  as  a  ransom ;  nor  to  have  interposed  any  other  consideration, 
on  account  of  which  he  was  allowed  to  lead  his  people  out  of  captivity. 
He  is  said  to  be  a  deliverer,  a  redeemer,  and  that  is  all ;  but  the  idea 
of  a  proper  redemption  could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things,  apply  to  the 
case,  and,  therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  interpret  the  term  in  its  proper 
sense.  The  Jews  were  captives,  and  he  delivered  them  ;  this  was  suffi- 
cient to  warrant  the  use  of  the  term  redemption  in  its  improper  sense, 
a  very  customary  thing  in  language ;  but  their  captivity  was  not  their 
fault,  as  ours  is ;  it  was  not  penal,  as  ours ;  they  were  delivered  from 
unjust  oppression ;  and  God  required  of  Moses  no  redemption  price,  as 
a  consideration  for  interposing  to  free  them  from  bondage.  In  our  case, 
the  captivity  was  penal ;  there  was  a  right  lodged  with  the  justice  of 
God  to  detain  us,  and  to  inflict  punishment  upon  us  ;  and  a  considera- 
tion was  therefore  required,  in  respect  of  which  that  right  was  relaxed. 
In  one  instance  we  are,  therefore,  compelled  to  interpret  the  word  in  an 
improper  sense  ;  in  the  other  strictly  ;  at  least  no  argument  can  be  drawn 
from  the  use  of  the  word  with  reference  to  Moses,  to  turn  it  out  of  its 
proper  signification  when  used  of  Christ ;  and  especially  when  all  the 
circumstances,  which  the  word  in  its  proper  sense  was  intended  to  con- 
vey, are  found  in  the  case  to  which  the  redem.ption  of  man  by  Christ  is 
applied.  Above  all,  the  word  Xu-pov  is  added  by  Scripture  to  the  deli- 
verance of  men,  effected  by  Christ ;  but  it  is  nowhere  added  to  the  de- 
liverance effected  for  the  Israelites  by  Moses ;  and  by  this  it  is,  in  fact, 
declared,  that  the  mode  by  which  the  redemption  of  each  was  effected, 
was  not  the  same, — the  one  was  by  the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of 
the  Israehtes  ;  the  other  by  the  death  of  the  DeUverer  himself.  (8) 
It  has  been  attempted  to  evade  the  hteral  import  of  the  important 

(8)  *'  Nam  Mosis  cum  Christo  instituta  collatio,  responsione  vix  indiget,  c  m 
omnis  sirnilitudo  certos  habeat  terminos,  quos  extra  protendi  nequeat.  Compa- 
rantur  illi,  qua  liberatores,  non  ob  liberandi  modum.  Neque  magis  ex  eo  sequi- 
tur,  Christum  satisfaciendo  nos  non  liberasse,  quia  Moses  id  non  fecerit,  quam 
Christum  nos  liberasse  per  hominura  mortem,  quia  id  fecerit  Moses.  Quod  si  ad 
modum  quoque  liberandi  comparatio  pertineret,  ea  ut  rectius  procederet,  dicen- 
dum  esset,  Christum  nos  liberasse  miraculis,  (ut  Moses,)  non  autem  sua  morte 
suoque  sanguine,  quod  Mosi  nee  adscribitur,  nee  adscribi  potest.  Sed  praecipium 
est,  quod  vox  Xvrpov,  de  cujus  vi  hie  agimus,  liberationi  per  Mosen  partae  nusquam 
additur.  Quid  quod  ne  est  Socini  quidem  sententia  modus  liberandi  idem  est? 
Nam  Moses,  Josue,  et  alii  liberarunt,  non  aliquid  faciendo  circa  liberandos,  (quod 
Christo  Socinus  tribuit)  sed  amovendo  eos  qui  libertati  obstabant,  hostes  scili. 
cet."     {Grotius,  De  Satisfactione,  cap.  viii.) 

2 


126  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

terms  on  which  we  have  dwelt,  by  urging,  that  such  an  interpretation 
would  involve  the  absurdity  of  paying  a  price  to  Satan,  the  power  said 
to  hold  men  captive  at  his  will. 

But  why  should  the  idea  of  redemption  be  confined  to  the  purchasing 
of  a  captive  ?  The  reason  appears  to  be,  that  the  objection  may  be 
invested  with  some  plausibility.  The  fact,  however,  is,  that  this  is  but 
one  species  and  instance  of  redemption ;  for  the  word,  in  its  proper  and 
general  sense,  means  deliverance  from  evil  of  any  kind,  a  Xurpov  or  valua- 
ble consideration  intervening ;  which  valuable  consideration  may  not 
always  be  literally  a  price,  that  is,  not  money,  but  something  done,  or 
something  suffered,  by  which,  in  the  case  of  commutation  of  punishment, 
the  lawgiver  is  satisfied,  though  no  benefit  occurs  to  him ;  because  in 
punishment  respect  is  not  had  to  the  benefit  of  the  lawgiver,  but  to  the 
common  good  and  order  of  things.  So  when  Zaleucus,  the  Locrian 
lawgiver,  had  to  pass  sentence  upon  his  son,  for  a  crime  which,  by  his 
own  laws,  condemned  the  aggressor  to  the  loss  of  both  his  eyes,  rather 
than  relax  his  laws  by  sparing  his  son,  he  ordered  him  to  be  deprived 
of  one  of  his  eyes,  and  submitted  to  be  deprived  of  one  himself.  Thus 
the  eye  of  Zaleucus  was  the  Xurpov  of  that  of  his  son  ;  and,  in  a  decima- 
tion of  mutinous  soldiers,  those  who  are  punished  are  the  Xurpov  of  the 
whole  body. 

But  even  if  the  redemption,  in  Scripture,  related  wholly  to  captivity, 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  price  must  be  paid  to  him  who  detains  the 
captive.  Our  captivity  to  Satan  is  not  parallel  to  the  case  of  a  captive 
taken  in  war,  and  in  whom,  by  the  laws  of  war,  the  captor  has  obtained 
a  right,  and  demands  an  equivalent  for  liberation  and  the  renunciation 
of  that  right.  Our  captivity  to  Satan  is  judicial.  Man  listens  to  tempta- 
tion, violates  the  laws  of  God,  joins  in  a  rebellion  against  his  authority, 
and  his  being  left  under  the  power  of  Satan  is  a  part  of  his  punishment. 
The  satisfaction  is,  therefore,  to  be  made  to  the  law  under  which  this 
captivity  is  made  a  part  of  the  penalty  ;  not  to  him  who  detains  the  cap- 
tive,  and  who  is  but  a  permitted  instrument  in  the  execution  of  the  law, 
but  to  him  whose  law  has  been  violated.  He  who  pays  the  price  of 
redemption  has  to  do  with  the  judicial  authority  only,  and,  his  Xurpov 
being  accepted,  he  proceeds  to  rescue  the  object  of  his  compassion,  and 
becomes  the  actual  redeemer. 

The  Xurpov,  in  the  case  of  man,  is  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  our  redemp- 
tion is  not  a  commutation  of  a  pecuniary  price  for  a  person,  but  a  com- 
mutation of  the  sufferings  of  one  person  in  the  stead  of  another,  which 
sufferings  being  a  punishment,  in  order  to  satisfaction,  is  a  valuable  con- 
sideration, and,  therefore,  a  price  for  the  redemption  of  man  out  of  the 
hands  of  Satan,  and  from  all  the  consequences  of  that  captivity.  ( Vide 
Stilling  fleefs  Discourses  on  the  Sufferings,  <^c.) 

Under  this  head,  now  that  we  are  showing  that  the  death  of  Christ  is 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES^  127 

exhibited  in  Scripture  as  the  price  of  our  redemption,  it  may  also  be 
necessary  to  meet  another  objection,  that  this  doctrine  of  purchase  and 
commutation  is  inconsistent  with  that  freeness  of  the  grace  of  God  in 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  on  which  so  great  a  stress  is  laid  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. This  objection  has  been  urged  from  Socinus  to  Dr.  Priestley, 
and  is  thus  stated  by  the  latter  :  [History  of  the  Corruptions  :)  "  The 
Scriptures  uniformly  represent  God  as  our  universal  parent,  pardoning 
sinners  freely,  that  is,  from  his  natural  goodness  and  mercy,  whenever 
they  repent  and  reform  their  hves.  All  the  declarations  of  Divine  mercy 
are  made,  without  reserve  and  hmitation,  to  the  truly  penitent,  through 
all  the  books  of  Scripture,  without  the  most  distant  hint  of  any  regard 
being  had  to  the  sufferings  or  merit  of  any  being  whatever."  The  proofs 
which  he  gives  for  this  bold,  and,  indeed,  impudent  position,  are  chiefly 
the  declaration  of  the  apostle,  that  we  are  justified  yVee/?/  by  the  grace 
of  God,  and  he  contends  that  the  word  freely  "  implies  that  forgiveness 
is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and  proceeds  from  his  essential  goodness  and 
mercy,  without  regard  to  any  foreign  consideration  whatever.''^  It  is  sin- 
gular, however,  that  the  position,  as  Dr.  Priestley  has  put  it  in  the  above 
quotations,  refutes  itself;  for  even  he  restricts  the  exercise  of  this  mercy 
of  God,  "  to  the  truly  penitent,"  "  to  them  who  repent  and  reform  their 
lives."  Forgiveness,  therefore,  is  not,  even  according  to  him  and  his 
followers,  free  in  the  sense  of  unconditional,  and  at  the  very  time  he 
denies  that  pardon  is  bestowed  by  God,  "  without  regard  to  any  consi- 
deration whatever,  foreign  to  his  essential  goodness  and  mercy,"  he 
acknowledges  that  it  is  regulated,  in  its  exercise,  by  the  consideration 
of  the  penitence  or  non-penitence  of  the  guilty,  who  are  the  subjects  of 
it,  from  which  the  contradictory  conclusion  follows,  that,  in  bestowing 
mercy,  God  has  respect  to  a  consideration  foreign  to  Ms  goodness  and 
mercy,  even  the  penitence  of  man,  so  that  there  is,  in  the  mode  of  dis- 
pensing  mercy,  a  reserve  and  limitation  on  the  part  of  God. 

Thus,  then,  unless  they  would  let  in  all  kinds  of  license,  by  preach- 
ing an  unconditional  pardon,  the  Socinians  are  obhged  to  acknowledge, 
that  a  thing  may  be  done  freely,  which  is,  nevertheless,  not  done  un- 
conditionally. For,  as  it  was  repUed,  of  old,  to  Socinus,  whom  Dr. 
Priestley  follows  in  this  objection,  if  this  be  not  acknowledged,  then  the 
grossest  Antinomianism  is  the  true  doctrine.  For,  if  forgiveness  of  sin 
can  only  be  accounted  a  free  gift  by  being  dependent  upon  no  condi- 
tion, and  subject  to  no  restrictions,  it  follows,  that  the  repentance  and 
amendment  of  the  offender  himself  are  no  more  to  be  regarded  than  the 
sufferings  and  merit  of  any  other  being ;  and,  consequently,  that  all  sin- 
ners, without  reserve  or  limitation,  have  an  equed  claim  of  pardon, 
whether  they  repent  or  not.  If,  to  avoid  this  consequence,  it  be  said 
that  God  is  free  to  choose  the  objects  to  whom  he  will  show  mercy, 
and  to  impose  upon  them  such  restrictions,  and  to  require  of  them  such 

2 


128  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

qualifications  as  he  thinks  fit;  it  may  then,  with  equal  reason,  be 
asserted,  that  he  is  also  free  to  dispense  his  mercy  for  such  reasons  and 
by  such  methods  as  he,  in  his  wisdom,  shall  determine  to  be  most  con- 
ducive to  his  own  glory  and  the  good  of  his  creatures,  and  there  is  no  ^ 
reason  whatever  to  be  given  why  a  regard  to  the  sufferings  or  merit  of 
another  person  should  more  destroy  the  freeness  of  the  gift,  than  the 
requisition  of  certain  qualifications  in  the  object  himself.  {Vide  Veysies* 
Bampton  Lectures.)  Thus  the  argument  urged  in  the  objection  proves 
as  much  against  the  objectors  as  it  does  against  us,  or  rather  it  proves 
nothing  against  either :  for  the  showing  mercy  to  the  guilty,  by  any 
method,  was  a  matter  in  which  almighty  God  was  perfectly  free.  He 
might  have  exacted  the  penalty  of  his  violated  law  upon  the  sinning 
individual ;  and  to  forgive  sin,  in  any  manner,  was,  in  him,  therefore, 
an  act  of  unspeakable  grace  and  favour.  Again,  from  the  mode  and 
limitation  of  dispensing  this  grace  and  favour,  he  derives  no  advantage 
(for  the  gratification  of  his  own  benevolence  is  not  a  question  of  interest) 
in  the  whole  transaction  ;  both  in  the  mercy  dispensed  and  in  the  mode 
the  benefit  of  the  creature  is  kept  in  view ;  nor  could  the  persons  par- 
doned themselves  furnish  any  part  of  the  consideration  on  which  they 
are  pardoned,  or,  of  themselves,  perform  the  conditions  required  of 
them ;  so  that,  for  all  these  reasons,  the  pardon  of  man  is  a  free  gift,  and 
its  mode  of  being  dispensed  is  the  proof  that  it  is  so,  and  not  a  proof  to 
the  contrary. 

But  the  very  passage  of  St.  Paul,  to  which  Dr.  Priestley  refers,  when 
he  contends  that  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is,  '•  that  forgive- 
ness is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and  proceeds  from  his  essential  goodness 
and  mercy,  without  regard  to  any  foreign  consideration  whatever,"  re- 
futes  his  inference.  The  passage  is,  "being  justified  freely  by  his 
grace,  through  the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus. ^^  The  same 
doctrine  is  taught  in  other  passages ;  and  so  far  is  it  from  being  true, 
that  no  reference  is  made  to  any  consideration  beyond  the  mere  good- 
ness and  mercy  of  God,  that  consideration  is  stated  in  so  many  express 
words,  "  through  the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;"  of  which 
redemption  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the  price,  as  taught  in  the  text  above 
commented  on.  But  though  it  was  convenient,  in  order  to  render  a 
bold  assertion  more  plausible,  to  keep  this  out  of  sight,  a  little  reflection 
might  have  shown,  that  the  argument  built  upon  the  word  freely,  the 
term  used  by  the  apostle,  proceeds  upon  an  entire  mistake.  The  ex- 
pression has  reference  to  ourselves  and  to  our  own  exertions  in  the  work 
of  justification,  not  to  any  thing  which  has  been  done  by  another  in  our 
behalf;  and  it  is  here  used  to  denote  the  manner  in  which  the  blessing 
is  bestowed,  not  the  means  by  which  it  was  procured.  "  Being  justified 
freely  by  his  grace" — freely,  in  the  origuial  5wp£av,  in  the  way  of  a  gift 
unmerited  by  us,  and  not  in  the  way  of  a  reward  for  our  worthiness  or 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  129 

desert,  agreeably  to  the  assertion  of  the  apostle  in  another  place,  "  not 
by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his 
mercy  he  saved  us."  To  be  justified,  is  to  be  pardoned,  and  treated  as 
righteous  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  to  be  admitted  thus  into  his  favour 
and  acceptance.  But  man,  in  his  fallen  state,  had  nothing  in  himself, 
and  could  do  nothing  of  himself,  by  which  he  might  merit,  or  claim  as 
his  due  so  great  a  benefit.  Having,  therefore,  no  pretensions  to  real 
righteousness,  our  absolution  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  our  admission  to 
the  character  and  privileges  of  righteous  persons,  must  be  imputed  not 
to  our  merit,  but  to  the  grace  of  God ;  it  is  an  act  of  mercy  which  we 
must  acknowledge  and  receive  as  a  free  gift,  and  not  demand  as  a  just 
reward.  Nor  do  the  means  by  which  our  justification  was  effected  in 
any  respect  alter  its  nature  as  a  gift,  or  in  the  least  diminish  its  freedom. 
"  We  are  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Jesus  Christ ;"  but  this  redemption  was  not  procured  by  us,  nor  pro- 
vided at  our  expense.  It  was  the  result  of  the  pure  love  of  God,  who, 
compassionating  our  misery,  himself  provided  the  means  of  our  deliver- 
ance, by  sending  his  only-begotten  Son  into  the  world,  who  voluntarily 
submitted  to  die  upon  the  cross,  that  he  might  become  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins,  and  reconcile  us  to  God.  Thus  is  the  whole  an  entire  act 
of  mercy  on  the  part  of  God  and  Christ ;  begun  and  completed  for  our 
benefit,  but  without  our  intervention  ;  and,  therefore,  with  respect  to  us, 
the  pardon  of  sin  must  still  be  accounted  a  gift,  though  it  comes  to  us 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Equally  unfounded  is  the  argument  built  upon  the  passages  in  which 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  represented  under  the  notion  of  the  free  remis- 
sion of  a  debt ;  in  which  act,  it  is  said,  there  is  no  consideration  of 
atonement  and  satisfaction.  When  sin  is  spoken  of  as  a  debt,  a  meta- 
phor is  plainly  employed,  and  it  would  be  a  novel  rule  to  interpret  what 
is  plainly  literal  by  what  is  metaphorical.  There  is,  undoubtedly,  some- 
thing in  the  act  of  forgiving  sin  which  is  common  with  the  act  of  remit- 
ting a  debt  by  a  creditor,  or  there  would  be  no  foundation  for  the  meta- 
phor ;  but  it  can  by  no  means  legitimately  follow,  that  the  remission  of  sins 
is,  in  all  its  circumstances,  to  be  interpreted  by  all  the  circumstances  which 
accompany  the  free  remission  of  a  debt.  We  know  on  the  contrary, 
that  remission  of  sins  is  not  unconditional ;  repentance  and  faith  are  re- 
quired in  order  to  it,  which  is  acknowledged  by  the  Socinians  themselves. 
But  this  acknowledgment  is  fatal  to  the  argument  they  would  draw  from 
the  instances  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  almighty  God  is  repre- 
sented as  a  merciful  creditor,  freely  forgiving  his  insolvent  debtors ;  for 
if  the  act  of  remitting  sins  be  in  all  respects  like  the  act  of  forgiving 
debts,  then  indeed  can  neither  repentance,  nor  faith,  nor  condition 
of  any  kind,  be'  insisted  upon  in  order  to  forgiveness ;  since,  in  the 
instances  referred  to,  the  debtors  were  discharged  without  any  express- 
Vol.  II.  9 


130  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ed  condition  at  all.  But  something,  also,  previous  to  our  repentance 
and  faith,  is  constantly  connected  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament  with  the  very  offer  of  forgiveness.  "  It  behooved  Christ  to 
suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,"  that  "  repentance 
and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all  nations." 
It  was  necessary,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that  the  one  should  take 
place  before  the  other  could  be  announced  ;  and  some  degree  of  neces- 
sity is  allowed  in  the  case,  even  on  the  Socinian  hypothesis,  although  a 
very  subordinate  one.  But  if  by  an  act  of  prerogative  alone,  unfettered 
by  any  considerations  of  justice  and  right,  as  is  a  creditor  when  he 
freely  forgives  a  debt,  God  forgives  sins,  then  there  could  be  no  neces- 
sity of  any  conceivable  kind  for  "  Christ  to  suffer ;"  and  the  offer  of 
remission  of  sins  would,  in  that  case,  have  been  wholly  independent  of 
his  sufferings,  which  is  contrary  to  the  text.  In  perfect  accordance 
with  the  above  passage,  is  that  in  Acts  xiii,  38,  where  it  is  said,  "  Be  it 
known  unto  you,  therefore,  men  and  brethren,  that  through  this  man, 
[BicL  Tsrii  through  the  means  of  this  man,)  is  preached  unto  you  the  for- 
giveness of  sins."  Here  the  same  means  as  those  before  mentioned  by 
St.  Luke,  are  obviously  referred  to,  "  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ."  Still  more  expressly.  Matt,  xxvi,  28,  our  Lord  declares  that 
his  blood  is  "  the  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins  ;"  where  he  plainly  makes  his  blood  the  pro- 
curing cause  of  that  remission,  and  a  necessary  libation  in  order  to  its 
being  attainable.  Our  redemption  is  said  by  St.  Paul,  Ephes.  i,  7,  to 
be,  "  through  his  blood,"  and  this  redemption  he  explains  to  be  "  the  re- 
mission of  our  sins ;"  and  in  writing  to  the  Hebrews  he  lays  it  down,  as 
that  very  principle  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  which  made  it 
typical  of  the  New,  that  "  without  shedding  of  blood  there  was  no  remis- 
sion." This  remission,  is,  nevertheless,  for  the  reasons  given  above, 
always  represented  as  a  free  act  of  the  Divine  mercy ;  for  the  apostles 
saw  no  inconsistency  in  giving  to  it  this  free  and  gracious  character  on 
the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  proclaiming,  that  that  free  and  adorable 
mercy  was  called  into  exercise  by  the  "  chastisement  of  our  sins  being 
laid  upon  Christ ;"  and  thus  by  uniting  both,  they  broadly  and  infallibly 
distinguish  •'  the  act  of  a  lawgiver,  who  in  forgiving  sins  has  respect  to 
the  authority  of  the  law,  and  the  act  of  a  creditor,  who  in  remitting  a 
debt  disposes  of  his  property  at  his  pleasure." 

But  although  no  criticism  can  be  more  fallacious  than  to  interpret  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is  a  plain  and  literal  transaction,  by  a  meta- 
phor, or  a  parable,  which  may  have  either  too  few  or  too  many  circum- 
stances interwoven  with  it  for  just  illustration,  when  applied  beyond,  or 
contrary  to,  its  intention,  the  reason  of  the  metaphor  is  at  once  obvious 
and  beautiful.  The  verb  acpirjfxi,  is  the  word  commonly  used  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  and  the  remission  of  debts.  It  signifies  to  send  away, 
2 


SBtOXD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  131 

dismiss  ;  and  is  accommodated  to  both  these  acts.  The  ideas  of  abso"- 
lute  right  in  one  party,  and  of  binding  obhgation  on  the  other,  hold  good 
equally  as  to  the  lawgiver  and  the  transgressor,  the  creditor  and  the 
debtor.  The  lawgiver  has  a  right  to  demand  obedience,  the  creditor 
to  demand  his  property  ;  the  transgressor  of  law  is  under  the  bond  of 
its  penalty,  the  debtor  is  under  the  obligation  of  repayment  or  imprison- 
ment. This  is  the  basisf  of  the  comparison  between  debts  of  money,  and 
obligations  of  obedience  to  a  lawgiver  ;  and  the  same  word  is  equally 
well  applied  to  express  the  cancelling  of  each,  though,  except  in  the  re- 
spects just  stated,  they  are  transactions  and  relations  very  different  to 
each  other.  Every  sin  involves  an  obligation  to  punishment ;  and  when 
sin  is  dismissed^  sent  away,  or  in  other  words  forgiven,  the  liability  to 
punishment  is  removed,  just  as  when  a  debt  is  dismissed,  sent  away,  or 
in  other  words  remitted,  the  obligation  of  repayment,  and,  in  default  of 
that,  the  obhgation  of  imprisonment,  or,  according  to  the  ancient  law, 
of  being  sold  as  a  slave,  is  removed  with  it.  So  far  the  resemblance 
goes  ;  but  the  Scriptures  themselves,  by  connecting  pardon  of  sin  with 
a  previous  atonement,  prevent  it  from  being  carried  farther.  And,  in. 
deed,  the  reason  of  the  case  sufficiently  shows  the  difference  between 
the  remitting  of  a  debt,  which  is  the  act  of  a  private  man,  and  the  par- 
don of  transgressions  against  a  public  law,  which  is  the  act  of  a  magis- 
trate ;  between  an  act  which  afiects  the  private  interests  of  one,  and  an 
act,  which,  in  its  bearing  upon  the  authority  of  the  public  law  and  the 
protection  and  welfare  of  society,  affects  the  interests  of  many  ;  in  a 
word,  between  an  act  which  is  a  matter  of  mere  feeling,  and  in  which 
rectoral  justice  can  have  no  place,  and  one  which  must  be  harmonized 
with  rectoral  justice  ;  for  compassion  to  the  guilty  can  never  be  the 
leading  rule  of  government. 

6.  The  nature  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  still  farther  explained  in  the 
New  Testament,  by  the  manner  in  which  it  connects  our  justification 
with  "  faith  in  the  blood,"  the  sufferings  which  Christ  endured  in  our 
stead  ;  and  both  our  justification,  and  the  death  of  Christ  as  its  merito- 
rious cause,  with  "  the  bighteousxess  of  God."  According  to  the 
testimony  of  the  whole  of  the  evangelic  writers,  the  justification  of 
man  is  an  act  of  the  highest  grace,  a  manifestation  of  the  superlative 
and  ineffable  love  of  God,  and  is,  at  the  same  time  a  strictly  righteous 
proceeding. 

These  views,  scattered  throughout  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
are  summed  up  in  the  following  explicit  language  of  St.  Paul,  Rom.  iii, 
24-28  :  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption 
that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  as  a  propitiation 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission 
of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  declare,  I  say, 
at  this  tinre  his  righteousness,  that  he  might  be  jtist^  and  the  justifier  of 


132  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

him  which  beheveth  in  Jesus."  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is  exceed- 
ingly lucid.  He  treats  of  man's  justification  before  God,  of  which  he 
mentions  two  methods.  The  first  is  by  our  own  obedience  to  the  law 
of  God,  on  the  principle  of  all  righteous  law,  that  obedience  secures 
exemption  from  punishment ;  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  chap,  x,  5,  "  For 
Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  that  the  man 
which  doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  them.^^  This  method  of  justifica- 
tion he  proves  to  be  impossible  to  man  in  his  present  state  of  degeneracy, 
and  from  the  actual  transgressions  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  on  account  of 
which  "  the  whole  world"  is  guilty  before  God ;  and  he  therefore  lays  it 
down  as  an  incontrovertible  maxim,  that  "  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall 
no  flesh  be  justified,"  since  "by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin;"  for 
which  it  provides  no  remedy.  The  other  method  is  justification  by  the 
grace  of  God,  as  a  "  free  gift ;"  but  coming  to  us  through  the  interven- 
tion of  the  death  of  Christ,  as  our  redemption  price  ;  and  received  instru- 
mentally  by  our  faith  in  him.  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ."  He  then  immediately 
adds,  "  whom  God  hath  set  forth,"  openly  exhibited  and  publicly  an- 
nounced, "  to  be  a  propitiation ;"  to  be  the  person  through  whose  volun- 
tary and  vicarious  sufferings  he  is  reconciled  to  sinful  man,  and  by  whom 
he  will  justify  all  who  "  through  faith"  confide  "  in"  the  virtue  of  "  his 
blood,"  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  But  this  pubhc  announcement 
and  setting  forth  of  Christ  as  a  propitiation  was  not  only  for  a  declara- 
tion of  the  Divine  mercy ;  but  pardon  was  offered  to  men  in  this  method, 
to  declare  the  "  righteousness^^  of  God,  (sis  sv^si^iv  5ixuio(fvvr,g  avm,)  for 
a  demonstration  of  his  righteousness  or  justice,  in  the  remission  of  past 
sins ;  "  that  he  might  be  just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth 
in  Jesus" — that  he  might  show  himself  to  be  strictly  and  inviolably 
righteous  in  the  administration  of  his  government,  even  while  he  justifies 
the  offender  that  believes  in  Jesus.  The  Socinian  version  renders  the 
clause,  "  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  to  show 
his  method  of  justification  concerning  the  remission  of  past  sins.  Even 
then  the  strict  rectoral  justice  of  the  act  of  justifying  sinners,  through 
faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  is  expressed  by  the  following  clause,  "  that 
he  might  be  just  ;"  but  the  sense  of  the  whole  passage  requires  the 
literal  rendering,  "  to  declare  his  justice,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the 
justifier  of  him  that  beheveth  in  Jesus."  Some  have  indeed  taken  the 
word  "jw5^"  (Sixaios)  in  the  sense  of  merciful ;  but  this  is  wholly  arbi- 
trary. It  occurs,  says  Whitby,  above,  eighty  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  not  once  in  that  sense.  (9)   The  sense  just  given  is  confirmed 

(9)  See  Nare's  Remarks  on  the  New  Version,  Magee  on  the  Atonement,  Whit, 
by  and  Doddridge  in  loc.     Righteousness  is  indeed  sometimes  used  for  veracity; 
but  only  when  some  principle  of  equity,  or  some  obligation  arising  from  engage- 
ment, promise,  or  threat,  is  implied. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  133 

by  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  it  is  indeed  put  beyond  the  reach  of 
verbal  criticism  by  the  clause,  "  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God."  For,  whatever  view  we  take  of  this 
clause,  whether  we  refer  it  to  the  sins  of  men  before  the  coming  of 
Christ,  or  to  the  past  sins  of  one  who  is  at  any  time  justified,  the  ita^sdig, 
or  "  passing  over"  of  sins,  or,  if  the  common  rendering  please  better, 
"the  remission  of  sins,"  and  the  "forbearance  of  God,"  are  acts  of  ob- 
vious  mercy ;  and  to  say  that  thus  the  mercy  of  Gou  is  manifested,  is 
tautological  and  identical ;  whereas  past  sins  not  punished  through  the 
forbearance  of  God,  without  a  public  atonement,  might  have  brought 
the  justice  of  God  into  question,  but  certainly  not  his  mercy.  It  was 
the  justice  of  the  proceeding,  therefore,  that  needed  a  demonstration, 
and  not  the  mercy  of  it.  This,  too,  is  the  obvious  reason  for  the  repe- 
tition so  emphatically  used  by  the  apostle,  and  which  is  no  otherwise  to 
be  accounted  for ;  "  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of 
sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God,  to  declare,  I  say,  at 
this  time,  his  righteousness ;"  "at  this  time,"  now  that  Christ  has  actu- 
ally appeared  to  pay  the  ransom,  and  to  become  the  publicly  announced 
propitiation  for  sin ;  God  cannot  now  appear  otherwise  than  just,  although 
he  justifies  him  that  beheveth  in  Jesus.  Similar  language  is  also  used 
by  St.  John  1st  Epistle,  i,  9,  "  He  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins." — So  that  the  grand  doctrine  of  Christianity  is  unequivocally 
stated  by  both  apostles  to  be,  that,  according  to  its  constitution,  the  for- 
giveness of  sin  is  at  once  an  act  of  mercy  and  an  act  of  justice,  or  of 
strictly  righteous  government.  Neither  the  Socinian  nor  the  Ariaii 
hypothesis,  at  all  harmonizes  with  this  principle ;  on  the  contrary,  they 
both  directly  contradict  it,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  true.  They  make 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  indeed,  an  act  of  mercy :  but  with  them  it  is  im- 
possible that  it  should  be  an  act  of  justice,  because  sin  receives  not  its 
threatened  punishment ;  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  not  exacted ;  the 
offender  meets  with  entire  impunity ;  and  the  Divine  administration,  so 
far  from  being  a  righteous  one,  has,  according  to  their  system,  no  respect 
to  either  truth  or  righteousness ;  and,  so  far  as  offences  against  the  Di- 
vine law  are  concerned,  that  law  is  reduced  to  a  dead  letter. 

But  in  Scripture  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  through  the  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice  of  Christ,  is  not  only  asserted  to  be  a  demonstration 
of  the  righteousness  of  God  in  a  case  which  might  seem  to  bring  it  intf 
question,  but  the  particular  steps  and  parts  of  this  "  demonstration"  are, 
by  its  light,  easy  to  be  traced.     For, 

1.  The  law,  the  rule  of  the  Divine  government,  is  by  this  means 
established  in  its  authority  and  perpetuity.  The  hypothesis  which  rejects 
the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  repeals  the  law  by  giving  impunity  to  trans- 
gression ;  for,  if  punishment  does  not  follow  offence,  or  no  other  term 
of  pardon  be  required  than  one  which  the  culprit  has  it  always  in  his 

2 


134  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

own  power,  at  once,  to  offer,  (which  we  have  seen  is  the  case  with  the 
repentance  stated  by  Socinians  as  the  only  condition  of  forgiveness,)  then 
is  the  law,  as  to  its  authority,  virtually  repealed,  and  the  Divine  govern- 
ment,  over  rebellious  creatures,  annihilated.  The  Christian  doctrine  of 
atonement,  on  the  contrary,  is,  that  sin  cannot  go  unpunished  in  the 
Divine  administration,  and,  therefore,  the  authority  of  the  law  is  esta- 
blished by  this  absolute  and  everlasting  exclusion  of  impunity  from 
transgression. 

2.  Whether  we  take  the  righteousness  or  justice  of  God,  for  that 
holiness  and  rectitude  of  his  nature  from  which  his  punitive  justice 
flows ;  or  for  the  latter,  which  consists  in  exacting  the  penalty  right- 
eously and  wisely  attached  to  offences  against  the  Divine  law,  or  for 
both  united  as  the  stream  and  the  fountain ;  it  is  demonstrated,  by  the 
refusal  of  impunity  to  sin,  that  God  is  this  holy  and  righteous  Being, 
this  strict  and  exact  Governor.  On  any  other  theory,  there  is  no  mani- 
festation of  God's  hatred  of  sin,  answering  at  all  to  that  intense  holiness  of 
his  nature,  which  must  lead  him  to  abhor  it ;  and  no  proof  of  his  rectoral 
justice  as  Governor  of  the  world.  Mercy  is,  according  to  them  all,  ad- 
ministered on  a  mere  principle  of  feeling,  without  any  regard  to  holiness 
or  justice  whatever. 

3.  The  doctrine  which  connects  the  pardon  of  the  guilty  with  the 
meritorious  death  of  Christ,  illustrates  the  attribute  of  Divine  justice,  by 
the  very  act  of  connecting  and  blending  it  with  the  attribute  of  love,  and 
the  exercise  of  an  effectual  compassion.  At  the  time  that  it  guards  with 
so  much  care,  the  doctrine  of  non-impunity  to  sin,  it  offers  impunity  to 
the  sinner ;  but  then  the  medium  through  which  this  offer  is  made  serves 
to  heighten  the  impression  of  God's  hatred  to  sin,  and  the  inflexible  cha- 
racter of  his  justice.  The  person  appointed  to  suffer  the  punishment 
of  sin  and  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  us,  was  not  a  mere  human  being, 
not  a  creature  of  any  kind,  however  exalted,  but  the  Son  of  God ;  and 
in  him  Divinity  and  humanity  were  united  in  one  person,  so  that  he  was 
**God  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  assuming  our  nature  in  order  that  he 
might  offer  it  in  death  a  sacrifice  to  God.  If  this  was  necessary,  and 
we  have  already  proved  it  to  have  been  so  in  the  strictest  sense,  then  is 
sin  declared,  by  the  strongest  demonstration  we  can  conceive,  to  be  an 
evil  of  immeasurable  extent ;  and  the  justice  of  God  is,  by  a  demonstra- 
tion of  equal  force,  declared  to  be  inflexible  and  inviolable.  God  "  spared 
not  his  own  Son." 

Here,  indeed,  it  has  been  objected  by  Socinus  and  his  followers,  that 
the  dignity  of  a  person  adds  nothing  to  the  estimation  of  his  suflTerings. 
The  common  opinion  of  mankind,  in  all  ages,  is,  however,  a  sufficient 
refutation  of  this  objection,  for  in  proportion  to  the  excellence  of  the 
creatures  immolated  in  sacrifice  have  the  value  and  efficacy  of  oblations 
been  estimated  by  all  people  ;  which  notion,  when  perverted,  made  them 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  135 

resort,  in  some  instances,  to  human  sacrifices,  in  cases  of  great  extremity ; 
and  surely,  if  the  principle  of  substitution  existed  in  the  penal  law  of  any 
human  government,  it  would  be  universally  felt  to  make  a  great  differ- 
ence in  the  character  of  the  law,  whether  an  honourable  or  a  mean 
substitute  were  exacted  in  place  of  the  guilty  ;  and  that  it  would  have 
greatly  changed  the  character  of  the  act  of  Zaleucus,  the  Locrian  law. 
giver,  before  mentioned,  and  placed  the  estimation  in  which  he  held  his 
own  laws,  and  the  degree  of  strictness  with  which  he  was  determined 
to  uphold  them,  in  a  very  different  light,  if,  instead  of  parting  with  one 
of  his  own  eyes,  in  place  of  the  remaining  eye  of  his  son,  he  had  ordered 
the  eye  of  some  base  slave  or  of  a  malefactor  to  be  plucked  out.  But  with- 
out  entering  into  this,  the  notion  will  be  exphcitly  refuted,  if  we  turn  to  the 
testimony  of  Holy  Writ  itself,  in  which  the  dignity  and  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  are  so  often  emphatically  referred  to  as  stamping  that  value  upon 
his  sacrifice,  as  giving  that  consideration  to  his  voluntary  sufferings  on 
our  account,  which  we  usually  express  by  the  term  of  "  his  merits"  Acts 
XX,  28,  as  God,  he  is  said  to  have  "  purchased  the  Church  with  his  own 
BLOOD."    In  Colos.  i,  14,  15,  we  are  said  to  have  "redemption  through 

HIS    BLOOD,  who    is    THE    IMAGE    OF    THE    INVISIBLE    GoD."       In    1   Cor. 

ii,  8,  "the  Lord  of  glory  is  said  to  have  been  crucified."  St.  Peter 
emphatically  calls  the  blood  of  Christ  "  precious  blood  ;"  and  St.  Paul 
dwellg  particularly  upon  this  peculiarity,  when  he  contrasts  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  with  those  of  the  law,  and  when  he  ascribes  that  purifying  effi- 
cacy, which  he  denies  to  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  to  the  blood  of 
Christ.  "  How  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through 
the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  con- 
science from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God."  By  the  argument 
of  Socinus  there  could  be  no  difference  between  the  blood  of  animals, 
shed  under  the  law,  as  to  value  and  efficacy,  and  the  blood  of  Christ, 
which  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the  declaration  and  argument  of  the 
apostle,  who  also  asserts,  that  the  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens 
were  purified  by  animal  sacrifices ;  "  but  the  heavenly  things  them- 
selves with  better  sacrifices  than  these,"  namely,  the  oblation  of 
Christ. 

To  another  objection  of  Socinus,  that  because  the  Divinity  itself 
suffers  not,  therefore  it  does  not  enter  into  this  consideration  of  punish, 
ment,  Grotius  well  replies.  This  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  it  is  an 
offence  of  the  same  kind  whether  you  strike  a  private  person  or  a  king, 
a  stranger  or  a  father,  because  blows  are  directed  against  the  body,  not 
against  dignity  or  relationship.  (1) 

(1)  "  Quod  autem  Socinus  argumentatur,  quia  divinitas  ipsa  non  patiatur, 
idee  banc  in  paense  considerationem  non  venire ;  perinde  est  ac  si  dicas,  nihil 
referre  privatum  an  Regem,  item  ignotum,  an  patrem  verberes,  quia  verbera  in 
corpus  dirigantur,  non  in  dignitatum,  aut  cognationera."  (De  Satisfactione.) 

2 


136  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

4.  In  farther  considering  this  subject,  as  illustrating  the  inherent  and 
the  rectoral  righteousness  of  God,  we  are  to  recollect  that,  although  by 
the  atonement  made  for  the  sins  of  mankind  by  the  death  of  Christ,  all 
men,  antecedently  to  their  repentance  and  faith,  are,  to  use  the  language 
of  divines,  put  into  "  a  salvable  state,"  yet  none  of  them  are  by  this  act 
of  Christ,  brought  from  under  the  authority  of  the  moral  law.  This 
remains  in  its  full  and  original  force,  and  as  they  all  continue  under  the 
original  obligation  of  obedience,  so  in  case  of  those  conditions  not 
being  comphed  with,  on  which  the  actud  communication  of  the  benefit 
of  redemption  has  been  made  to  depend,  those  who  neglect  the  great 
salvation  offered  to  them  by  Christ,  fall  under  the  full  original  penalty 
of  the  law,  and  are  left  to  its  malediction,  without  obstruction  to  the 
exercise  and  infliction  of  Divine  justice.  Nor,  with  respect  to  those 
who  perform  the  conditions  required  of  them,  and  who,  by  faith  in 
Christ,  are  justified,  and  thus  escape  punishment,  is  there  any  repeal,  or 
even  relaxation,  of  the  authority  of  the  law  of  God,  The  end  of  justi- 
fication is  not  to  set  men  free  from  law,  but  from  punishment ;  for, 
concomitant  with  justification,  though  distinct  from  it,  is  the  communi- 
cation  of  the  regenerating  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  the  cor- 
rupt and  invalid  nature  of  man  is  restored  to  the  love  of  holiness  and 
the  power  to  practise  it,  and  thus  the  law  of  God  becomes  his  constant 
rule,  and  the  measure  of  that  holiness  to  which,  when  this  new  creation 
has  taken  place,  he  vigorously  aspires :  "  For  wbat  the  law  could  not 
do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son,  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh,  that  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit."  Not,  indeed,  that  this  obedience,  which,  in 
the  present  life,  is,  in  some  respects,  imperfect,  and  in  every  degree  the 
result  of  the  operation  of  God  within  us,  can,  after  this  change,  be  the 
rule  of  our  continijed  justification  and  acceptance  ;  that  will  rest,  from 
first  to  last,  upon  the  atonement  of  Christ,  pleaded  in  our  behalf;  so 
that,  if  any  man  again  sin,  "  he  has  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus 
Christ  the  righteous  ;"  but  true  faith  leads,  by  an  inseparable  connec- 
tion, both  to  justification  and  to  regeneration  ;  and  they  who,  as  the 
apostle  argues,  Romans  vi,  2,  are  thus  "  dead  to  sin,  cannot  continue 
any  longer  therein,"  but  yield  willing  obedience  to  the  law  of  God, 
The  rule  of  God,  the  authority  of  his  law  is  thus  re-established  over  his 
creatures,  and  the  strictness  of  a  righteous  government  is  united  with 
the  exercise  of  a  tender  mercy. 

Thus,  then,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  we  see  how 
the  righteousness,  the  essential  and  the  rectoral  justice,  of  God  is  mani- 
fested. There  is  no  impunity  to  sin ;  and  yet  the  impunity  to  the  sinner, 
through  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  does  not  repeal,  does  not  lower,  but 
establish  the  law  of  God.  Tliese  views  will  also  enable  us  to  attach  an 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  137 

explicit  meaning  to  the  theological  phrase, "  the  satisfaction  made  to  Divine 
justice,"  by  which  the  nature  of  Christ's  atonement  is  often  expressed. 
This  is  not  a  phrase  of  Holy  Writ ;  but  it  is  not,  on  that  account,  to  be 
disregarded,  since,  like  many  others,  it  has  been  found  useful  as  a  guard 
against  subtle  evasions  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  in  giving  expli- 
citness,  not,  indeed,  to  the  language  of  inspiration,  but  to  the  sense  in 
which  that  language  is  interpreted. 

The  two  following  views  of  satisfaction  may  be  given  as  those  which 
are  most  prevalent  among  those  divines  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  of  Christ. 

The  first  may  be  thus  epitomised : — 

The  justice  of  God  being  concerned  to  vindicate  his  laws,  and  to 
inflict  upon  offenders  the  due  reward  of  their  evil  deeds,  it  is  agreed 
that,  without  proper  satisfaction,  sin  could  not  be  forgiven.  For,  as  sin 
is  opposite  to  the  purity  and  holiness  of  God,  and,  consequently,  cannot 
but  provoke  his  displeasure  ;  and,  as  justice  is  essential  to  the  Divine 
nature,  and  exists  there  in  a  supreme  degree,  it  must,  inflexibly,  require 
the  punishment  of  those  who  are  thus  objects  of  his  wrath.  The  satis- 
faction, therefore,  made  by  the  death  of  Christ  consisted  in  his  taking 
the  place  of  the  guilty ;  and  in  his  sufferings  and  death  being,  from  the 
dignity  of  his  nature,  regarded  by  the  oflTended  Lawgiver,  as  a  full  equi- 
valent and  adequate  compensation  for  the  punishment  by  death,  of  the 
personally  guilty. 

The  second  opinion  does  not  assume  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  satis- 
faction  to  Divine  justice,  but  chiefly  insists  upon  the  idsdom  and  Jiiness 
of  the  measure,  arguing,  that  it  became  the  almighty  Governor  of  the 
universe  to  consult  the  honour  of  his  law,  and  not  to  sufler  it  to  be  vio- 
lated with  impunity,  lest  his  subjects  should  call  in  question  his  justice. 
Accordingly,  he  sent  his  own  Son  into  the  world,  who,  by  dying  for  our 
sins,  obtained  our  release  from  punishment ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
made  an  honourable  display  of  the  righteousness  of  God.  In  a  word, 
Christ  is  supposed,  in  this  opinion,  to  have  made  satisfaction  for  our 
sins,  not  because  his  death  is  to  be  accounted  an  adequate  compensa- 
tion, or  a  full  equivalent  for  the  remission  of  punishment ;  but  because  his 
suflTering  in  our  stead  maintained  the  honour  of  the  Divine  law,  and  yet 
gave  free  scope  to  the  mercy  of  the  Lawgiver. 

Both  these  opinions  have  great  names  for  their  advocates ;  but  the 
reader  will  feel,  that  there  is  too  much  indistinctness  in  the  terms  and 
phrases  in  which  they  are  expressed  for  either  of  them  to  be  received 
as  a  satisfactory  enunciation  of  this  important  doctrine.  The  first  opi- 
nion, though  greatly  to  be  preferred,  and  with  proper  explanations,  just, 
is  defective  in  not  explaining  what  is  meant  by  the  terms  "  a  full  equi- 
valent" and  "  an  adequate  compensation."  The  second  is  objectiona- 
ble, as  appearing  to  refer  the  atonement  more  to  wisdom  and  fitness 


138  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

as  Ein  expedient,  than  to  wisdom  and  fitness  in  close  and  inseparable 
connection  with  justice;  and  is  defective  in  not  pointing  out  what 
that  connection  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  that  honouring  of  the 
law  of  God  is,  which  allows  of  the  remission  of  punishment  to  offenders, 
of  which  they  speak.  Each  embodies  much  truth,  and  yet  both  are 
capable  of  originating  great  and  fatal  errors,  unless  their  terms  be  defi. 
nitely  and  Scripturally  understood. 

To  clear  this  subject  some  farther  observations  will,  then,  be  necessary. 

The  term  satisfaction  is  taken  from  the  Roman  law,  and  signifies  to 
content  a  person  aggrieved,  by  doing  or  by  offering  something  which 
procures  hberation  from  the  obligation  of  debts  or  the  penalties  of 
offences ;  not  ipso  facto,  but  by  the  will  of  the  aggrieved  party  admit- 
ting this  substitution.  "  Ea  dictio  {satisfaciendi  vocabulum)  in  jure  et 
usu  communi  significat  facti  alicujus  aut  rei  exhibitionem,  ex  qua  non 
quidem  ipso  facto,  sed  accedente  voluntatis  actu  liberatio  sequatur ;  solet- 
que  non  tantum  in  pecuniaris  debitis,  sed  et  in  delictis  hoc  sensu  usur- 
pari,  quod  linquae  ex  Romana  depravatae  appellant,  aliquem  contentare" 
(Grotius  De  Satisfactione.)  So  the  Roman  lawyer  Caius,  "  satisfiicere 
dicimur  ei  cujus  desiderium  implemus,"  we  are  said  to  satisfy  him 
whose  desires  we  fulfil.  Ulpian  opposes  satisfaction  to  payment, 
"  satisfactio  pro  solutione ;"  and,  in  criminal  cases,  Asconius  lays  it 
down  as  a  rule,  "  satisfacere,  est  tantum  facere,  quantum  satis  sit  irato 
ad  vindictam,"  to  satisfy  is  to  do  as  much  as,  to  the  party  offended,  may 
be  enough  in  the  way  of  vengeance.  {Vide  Chapman's  Eusehius,)  It 
is  from  this  use  of  the  term  that  it  has  been  adopted  into  theology,  and 
however  its  meaning  may  have  been  heightened  or  lowered  by  the 
advocates  of  different  systems,  it  is  plain  that,  by  the  term  itself,  nothing 
is  indicated,  but  the  contentment  of  the  injured  party  by  any  thing 
which  he  may  choose  to  accept  in  the  place  of  the  enforcement  of  his 
obligation  upon  the  party  indebted  or  offending.  The  sense  in  which  it 
must  be  applied  to  designate  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  in  consistency  with  the  views  we  have  already  taken,  is  obvious. 
We  call  the  death  of  Christ  a  satisfaction  offered  to  Divine  justice  for  the 
transgressions  of  men,  with  reference  to  its  effect  upon  the  mind  of  the 
supreme  Lawgiver.  As  a  just  Governor,  he  is  satisfied,  contented 
with  the  atonement  offered  by  the  vicarious  death  of  his  Son,  and 
the  conditions  on  which  it  is  to  become  available  to  the  offenders ;  and 
their  punishment,  those  conditions  being  accomphshed,  is  no  longer 
exacted. 

This  effect  upon  the  mind  of  the  Lawgiver  is  not,  as  the  Socinians 
would  pervert  the  doctrine,  the  satisfaction  of  an  angry,  vengeful  affection, 
as  we  have  before  shown ;  but,  according  to  the  very  phrase  employed 
in  all  cases,  and  which  is  sufficient  to  show  that  their  perversion  of  our 
meaning  is  wilful,  "  a  satisfaction,"  or  "  contentment"  of  his  justice^ 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  139 

which  means,  and  can  only  rationally  mean,  the  satisfaction  of  the  mind 
of  a  just  or  righteous  governor,  disposed  from  the  goodness  of  his 
nature,  to  show  mercy  to  the  guilty,  and  who  can  now  do  it  consistently 
with  the  rectitude  of  his  character,  and  the  authority  of  his  laws,  which 
it  is  the  office  of  punitive  justice  to  proclaim,  and  to  uphold.  The 
satisfaction  of  Divine  justice  by  the  death  of  Christ,  consists,  therefore, 
in  this,  that  this  wise  and  gracious  provision  on  the  part  of  the  Father 
having  been  voluntarily  carried  into  effect  by  the  Son,  the  just  God 
has  determined  it  to  be  as  consistent  with  his  own  holy  and  righteous 
character,  and  the  ends  of  law  and  government,  to  forgive  all  who 
have  true  "  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,"  the  appointed  propitiation  for 
sin,  as  though  they  had  all  been  personally  punished  for  their  trans- 
gressions. 

The  death  of  Christ,  then,  is  the  satisfaction  accepted  ;  and  this  bemg 
a  satisfaction  to  justice,  that  is,  a  consideration  which  satisfied  God,  as 
a  being  essentially  righteous,  and  as  having  strict  and  inflexible  respect 
to  the  justice  of  his  government ;  pardon  through,  or  for  the  sake  of 
that  death,  became,  in  consequence,  "  a  declaration  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,"  as  the  only  appointed  method  of  remitting  the  punishment 
of  the  guilty ;  and  if  so,  satisfaction  respects  not,  in  the  first  instance, 
according  to  the  second  opinion  we  have  stated  above,  the  honour  of  the 
law  of  God,  but  its  authority,  and  the  upholding  of  that  righteous  and 
holy  character  of  the  Lawgiver,  and  of  his  administration,  of  which  that 
law  is  the  visible  and  pubhc  expression.  Nor  is  this  to  be  regarded  as 
a  merely  wise  and  jit  expedient  of  government,  a  point  to  which  even 
Grotius  leans  too  much,  as  well  as  many  other  divines  who  have 
^^dopted  the  second  opinion  ;  for  this  may  imply  that  it  was  one  of  many 
other  possible  expedients,  though  the  best ;  whereas  we  have  seen,  that 
it  is  every  where  in  Scripture  represented  as  necessary  to  human  salva- 
tion ;  and  that  it  is  to  be  concluded,  that  no  alternative  existed  but  that 
of  exchanging  a  righteous  government  for  one  careless  and  relaxed,  to 
the  dishonour  of  the  Divine  attributes,  and  the  sanctioning  of  moral  dis- 
order ;  or  the  upholding  of  such  a  government  by  the  personal  and 
extreme  punishment  of  every  offender ;  or  else  the  acceptance  of  the 
vicarious  death  of  an  infinitely  dignified  and  glorious  being,  through 
whom  pardon  should  be  offered,  and  in  whose  hands  a  process  for  the 
moral  restoration  of  the  lapsed  should  be  placed.  The  humiliation, 
sufferings,  and  death  of  such  a  being,  did  most  obviously  demonstrate 
the  righteous  character  and  administration  of  God  ;  and  if  the  greatest 
means  we  can  conceive  was  employed  for  this  end,  then  we  may  safely 
conclude,  that  the  righteousness  of  God,  in  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  could 
not  have  been  demonstrated  by  inferior  means ;  and  as  God  cannot 
cease  to  be  a  righteous  Governor,  man,  in  that  case,  could  have  had 
fio  hope. 

2 


140  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  advocates  of  the  second  opinion  not  only  speak  of  the  honour  of 
the  Divine  law  being  concerned  in  this  transaction  ;  but  of  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  justice  of  God,  in  which  they  come  substantially  to  an  agree- 
ment with  those  who  hold  the  first  opinion ;  and  if  so,  there  appears  no 
reason  to  except  to  such  phrases  as  a  "  full  equivalent"  and  "  an  ade- 
quate  compensation,"  when  soberly  interpreted.  An  equivalent  is  some- 
thing of  equal  value,  or  of  equal  force  and  power,  to  something  else  ;  but 
here  the  value  spoken  oHs  judicial  value,  that  which  is  to  weigh  equally 
in  the  mind  of  a  wise,  benevolent,  and  yet  strictly  righteous  Governor  ;  and 
if  the  death  of  Christ  for  sinners  was  determined,  in  his  infallible  judg- 
ment, to  be  as  equal  a  "  demonstration"  of  his  justice,  as  the  personal 
and  extreme  punishment  of  offenders  themselves,  it  was,  in  this  judicial 
consideration  of  the  matter,  of  equal  weight,  and  therefore  of  equal  value, 
as  a  means  of  righteous  government ;  for  which  reason,  also,  it  was  of 
equal  force,  or  power,  or  cogency,  another  leading  sense  of  the  term 
equivalent.  So  also,  as  to  the  term  "  compensation,"  which  signifies  the 
weighing  of  one  thing  against  another,  the  making  amends.  If  this 
be  interpreted  as  the  former,  judicially,  the  death  of  Christ  for  sinners 
is  an  adequate  compensation  for  their  personal  punishment,  in  the  esti- 
mation of  Divine  justice  ;  because  it  is,  at  least,  an  equally  powerful 
demonstration  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  who  only  in  consideration  of 
that  atonement  forgives  the  sins  of  offending  men. 

Just,  however,  and  significant  as  these  phrases  are  when  thus  inter- 
preted, one  reason  why  they  have  been  objected  to  by  some  orthodox 
divines  is,  that  they  have  been  used  in  support  of  the  Antinomian  doctrine. 
On  this  account  they  have  been  by  some  wholly  rejected,  and  a  loose  and 
dangerous  phraseology  introduced,  when  the  reason  of  the  case  only 
required  that  they  should  be  explained.  The  Antinomian  perversion  of 
them  may  here  be  briefly  refuted,  though  that  doctrine  will  afterward 
come  under  our  more  direct  consideration. 

In  the  first  place  the  Antinomians  connect  the  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  his  active  righteousness  to  believers. 
With  them,  therefore,  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  means  his  performing  for 
us  that  obedience  which  we  were  bound  to  perform.  They  consider  our 
Lord  as  a  proxy  for  men  ;  so  that  his  perfect  obedience  to  the  law  should 
be  esteemed  by  God,  as  done  by  them ;  as  theirs  in  legal  construction, 
and  that  his  perfect  righteousness  being  imputed  to  them,  renders  them 
legally  righteous  and  sinless.  The  plain  answer  to  this  is,  1.  Tliat  we 
have  no  such  office  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  the  active  righteousness  of 
Christ,  which  is  only  spoken  of  there  in  connection  with  his  atonement, 
as  rendering  him  a  fit  victim  or  sacrifice  for  sin — "  he  died,  the  just  for 
the  unjust."  2.  That  this  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  obedi- 
ence makes  his  sufferings  superfluous.  For  if  he  has  done  all  that  the 
law  required  of  us,  and  if  this  is  legally  accounted  our  doing,  then  are 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  141 

we  under  no  penalty  of  suffering,  aiid  his  suffering  in  our  stead  was 
more  than  the  law  and  the  case  required.  3.  That  this  involves  a 
fction  opposed  to  the  ends  of  moral  government,  and  shuts  out  the  obli- 
gation of  personal  obedience  to  the  law  of  God;  so  far,  therefore,  is  it 
from  being  a  demonstration  of  God's  righteousness,  his  rectoral  justice, 
that  it  transfers  the  obligation  of  obedience  from  the  subjects  of  the  Divine 
government  to  Christ,  and  leaves  man  without  law,  and  God  without 
dominion,  which  is  obviously  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  and  favourable 
to  license  of  every  kind.  4.  This  is  not  satisfaction  in  any  good  sense  ; 
it  is  merely  the  performance  of  all  that  the  law  requires  by  one  person 
substituted  for  another. 

Again,  the  terms  full  satisfaction  and  full  equivalent,  are  taken  by  the 
Antinomians  in  the  sense  of  the  payment  of  debts  by  a  surety  for  him 
who  has  not  the  means  of  payment ;  as  though  sins  were  analogous  to 
civil  debts.  This  proceeds  upon  the  mistake  of  confounding  the  cancel- 
ling of  a  debt  of  judicial  obligation,  with  the  payment  of  a  debt  of 
money.  We  have  already  seen  the  difference  between  the  relation  of  a 
sinner  to  his  offended  Judge  and  Sovereign,  and  that  of  a  pecuniary 
debtor  to  a  creditor,  and  have  pointed  out  the  basis  of  the  metaphor, 
when  it  occurs  as  a  figurative  representation  in  Scripture.  Such  pay- 
ment would  not  be  satisfaction  in  the  proper  sense,  which  stands  opposed 
to  payment,  and  means  the  acceptance  of  something  in  the  place  of 
what  is  due,  with  which  the  Lawgiver  is  content.  Nor  can  any  such 
sense  be  forced  upon  the  term  satisfaction,  for  we  have  no  such  repre- 
sentation in  Scripture  of  the  deatli  of  Christ,  as  that  it  is,  in  principle, 
like  the  payment  of  so  many  talents  or  pounds  by  one  person,  for  so 
many  talents  or  pounds  owing  by  another,  and  which  thereby  cancels  all 
future  obligation.  His  atoning  act  consisted  in  suffering,  "  the  just  for 
the  unjust ;"  neither  in  doing  just  so  many  holy  acts  as  we  were  bound 
to  do,  nor  in  suffering  the  precise  quantum  of  pain  which  we  deserved 
to  suffer,  neither  of  which  appears  in  the  nature  of  things  to  be  even  pos- 
sible ;  but  doing  and  suffering  that  which  by  reason  of  the  peculiar  glory 
and  dignity  of  the  person  thus  coming  under  the  bond  of  the  law,  both 
as  to  obedience  and  suffering,  was  accounted  by  God  to  be  a  sufficient 
"  demonstration  of  his  righteousness,"  in  showing  mercy  to  all  who  truly 
believe  in  him.  And  as  this  notion  of  payment  in  full  and  kind  by  a 
surety  is  contrary  to  the  import  of  satisfaction,  so  also  is  it  inconsistent 
with  the  import  of  the  phrase,  a  full  equivalent.  He  who  pays  a  civil 
debt  in  full  for  another,  does  not  render  an  equivalent ;  but  gives  pre- 
cisely what  the  original  obligation  required.  So,  if  the  obedien;'-e  of 
Christ  were  equal  in  quantity  and  degree  to  all  the  acts  of  obedience 
due  by  men,  and  is  to  be  accounted  theirs,  there  is  no  equivalent  offered  ; 
but  the  same  thing  is  done,  only  it  is  done  by  another ;  and  if  the  penal 
sufferings  of  Christ  were  in  nature,  quantity,  and  intenseness,  equal  to 

2 


142  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  punishment  of  all  sinners,  in  time  and  eternity  taken  together,  and 
are  to  be  accounted  their  sufferings,  no  proper  equivalent  is  offered  in 
the  case.  The  only  true  sense  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  being  a  full 
equivalent  for  the  remission  of  the  punishment  due  to  the  guilty,  is,  that 
they  equally  availed  to  the  satisfying  of  Divine  justice,  and  vindicating 
the  authority  of  his  laws ;  that  they  were  equivalent,  in  the  estimation 
of  a  just  Governor,  in  the  administration  of  his  laws,  to  the  punishment 
of  the  guilty ;  equivalent  in  effect  to  a  legal  satisfaction,  which  would 
consist  in  the  enforcement  upon  the  pcTsons  of  the  offenders  of  the 
penalty  of  the  violated  commandment. 

Another  consequence  to  which  the  Antinomian  view  leads,  is,  that 
it  makes  the  justification  of  men  a  matter  of  7-ight,  not  of  grace. 

We  can  easily,  when  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  is  properly  stated, 
answer  the  infidel  and  Socinian  objection,  that  it  destroys  the  free  and 
gracious  nature  of  an  act  of  forgiveness.  For,  not  to  urge  again  what 
has  before  been  advanced,  that  the  Father  was  the  fountain  of  this  mercy, 
and  "^aue"  the  Son;  the  satisfaction  was  quid  recusabile,  or  such  as 
God  might  have  refused.  For  if  the  laws,  under  which  God  had  placed 
us,  were  "  holy,  just,  and  good,"  which  is  their  real  character,  and  if  the 
penalties  attached  to  their  violation  were  righteous,  which  must  also  be 
conceded,  then  it  would  have  been  righteous,  every  way  consistent  with 
the  glory  of  God,  and  with  every  perfeciion  of  his  nature,  to  have 
enforced  the  penalty.  The  satisfaction  offered  might  not  be  unjust  in 
him  to  accept,  and  yet  he  was  clearly  under  na  obligation  ta  accept  it 
could  it  have  been  offered  independent  of  himself,  much  less  could  he 
be  under  any  obligation  to  'provide  it,  which  he  did.  The  oftender  could 
have  no  right  to  claim  such  a  provision,  and  it  depended,  therefore,  solely 
on  the  will  of  God,  and  as  such  was  an  act  of  the  highest  grace. 

Again,  the  forgiveness  of  sinners^  through  an  atonement,  is  not  dejure, 
that  which  can  be  claimed  as  a  matter  of  right.  It  is  made  to  consist 
with  law,  but  is  not  in  any  sense  by  the  law.  However  valuable  the 
atonement,  yet,  independent  of  the  favour  and  grace  of  the  Lawgiver,  it 
could  not  have  obtained  our  pardon.  Both  must  concur  in  order  to 
this,  the  kindness  and  compassion  of  the  being  offended  inducing  him 
to  accept  satisfaction,  and  such  a  satisfaction  as  would  render  it  morally 
fit  and  honourable  in  him  to  offer  forgiveness.  "  By  grace,"  therefore, 
we  "  are  saved  ;"  and  nothing  that  Christ  has  done,  renders  us  not 
deserving  of  punishment,  or  cancels  our  obligations  as  creatures  and 
subjects,  as  a  surety  cancels  the  obligations  of  a  debtor,  whose  debt  he 
pays  for  him.  Forgiveness  in  God  can,  therefore,  be  no  other  than  an 
act  of  high  and  distinguished  mercy. 

We  are  also  to  consider,  even  now  that  the  atonement  has  been 
accepted,  and  the  promise  of  forgiveness  proclaimed,  upon  the  conditions 
of  repentance  and  faith,  that  we  claim  forgiveness  not  on  the  ground  of 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  143 

justice,  but  on  that  of  the  faithfulness  of  God,  who  has  been  pleased  to 
bind  himself  by  promises  ;  and  also  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  are 
farther  illustrated  by  his  not  proceeding  to  extremities  against  us  upon 
our  first  refusals  of  his  overtures,  of  which  all  are  in  some  degree  guilty. 
He  exercises  toward  us,  in  all  cases,  "all  long  suffering,"  and  calls 
us  not  hastily  to  account  for  our  neglect  of  the  Gospel,  any  more  than 
for  the  infractions  of  his  law,  both  which  he  might  do,  were  his  govern- 
ment severe  and  his  mercy  reluctant. 

But  abundantly  as  the  objection  may  thus  be  answered,  it  is  not  to  be 
satisfactorily  refuted,  on  the  Antinomian  principle,  that  Christ  paid  our  debt, 
in  the  sense  of  yielding  to  the  law,  in  kind  and  in  quantitTj,  those  acts  of 
obedience,  or  that  penalty  of  suffering,  or  both,  which  the  law  required. 
The  matter  in  that  case,  on  the  part  of  the  Father,  loses  its  character  of 
grace,  and  is  reduced  to  a  strictly  equitable  proceeding  ;  or  at  least  the 
mercy  is  of  no  higher  a  kind  than  is  the  mercy  of  a  creditor  who  accepts 
the  full  amount  of  his  debt  from  the  surety  instead  of  the  debtor,  which  is 
assuredly  much  below  that  love  of  the  Father,  to  which  allusions  so 
admiring  and  so  grateful  are  often  made  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
consequences,  also,  become  absurd  and  wholly  contradictory  to  the 
Scriptures ;  and  such  a  view  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  inconsistent 
with  conditions  of  pardon  and  acceptance  ;  for  if  the  debt  is  in  this  sense 
actually  tendered  and  accepted,  on  what  ground  can  conditions  of  release 
stand  ?  It  is,  therefore,  consistent  in  the  Antinomian  scheme,  to  deny 
all  conditions  of  pardon  and  acceptance,  and  to  make  repentance  and  faith 
merely  the  means  through  which  men  come  to  the  knowledge  of  th-eir 
previous  and  eternal  election.  By  them,  as  fulfilled  conditions,  their 
relation  to  God  is  not  changed,  so  that  from  guilty  and  condemned 
criminals  they  become  sons  of  God.  Such  they  were  previous  to  faith, 
and  previous  even  to  birth,  and  thus  the  Scripture  is  contradicted,  which 
represents  believers  before  repentance  and  faith,  to  be  "  the  children  of 
wrath,  even  as  others."  That  passage  also  in  Galatians  loses  its  mean- 
ing, "  we  have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by 
the  faith  of  Christ." 

With  such  explanations  of  the  terms  of  the  first  of  the  two  opinions  on 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  above  given,  it  may  be  taken  as  fully  accordant 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  on  this  important  subject. 

Another  remark  may  here  be  in  its  proper  place.  It  has  been  some- 
times said  by  theologians,  sufficiently  sound  in  their  general  views  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  that  we  know  not  the  vinculum,  or  bond 
of  connection,  between  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  pardon  of  sin, 
and  this,  therefore,  they  place  among  the  mysteries  of  religion.  To  me 
this  appears  rather  to  arise  from  obscure  views  of  the  atonement  than  from 
the  absence  of  information  on  this  point  in  the  Scriptures  themselves. 
Mysteries  of  love  and  incomprehensible  facts  are  found,  it  is  true,  in 

2 


144  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  incarnation,  humiliation,  and  sufferings  of  our  Lord ;  but  the  vinculum^ 
or  connection  of  those  sufferings  appears  to  be  matter  of  express  revela- 
tion, when  it  is  declared  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  "  a  demonstration 
of  the  righteousness  of  God,"  of  his  righteous  character  and  his  just 
administration,  and  therefore  allowed  the  honourable  exercise  of  mercy 
without  impeachment  of  justice,  or  any  repeal  or  relaxation  of  his  laws. 
If  it  be  meant,  in  this  allegation  of  mystery,  that  it  is  not  discoverable 
how  the  death  of  Christ  is  as  adequate  a  display  of  the  justice  of  God,  as 
though  offenders  had  been  personally  punished,  this  also  is  clearly  in 
opposition  to  what  the  apostle  has  said,  in  the  passage  which  has  been 
so  often  referred  to,  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation, 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness,"  sig  sv(5si|iv  tt^^ 
Sixonodwrig  avrii,for  a  demonstration,  or  manifestation  of  his  righteoiis- 
ness  ;  nor  surely  can  the  particulars  before  stated  in  explanation  of  this 
point,  be  well  weighed,  without  our  perceiving  how  gloriously  the  holi- 
ness and  essential  rectitude  of  God,  as  well  as  his  rectoral  justice,  were 
illustrated  by  this  proceeding ;  this,  surely,  is  manifestation,  not 
mystery. 

For,  generally  speaking,  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  difficulty  to  con- 
ceive  how  the  authority  of  a  law  may  be  upheld,  and  the  justice  of  its 
administration  made  manifest,  even  when  its  penalty  is  exacted  in  some 
other  way  than  the  punishment  of  the  party  offending.  When  the 
Locrian  legislator  voluntarily  suffered  the  loss  of  one  of  his  eyes,  to 
save  that  of  his  son  condemned  by  his  own  statutes  to  lose  both,  and 
did  this  that  the  law  might  neither  be  repealed  nor  exist  without  effi- 
cacy ;  who  does  not  see  that  the  authority  of  his  laws  was  as  much, 
nay  more,  impressively  sanctioned  than  if  his  son  had  endured  the  full 
penalty  ?  The  case,  it  is  true,  has  in  it  nothing  parallel  to  the  work  of 
Christ,  except  in  that  particular  which  it  is  here  adduced  to  illustrate ; 
but  it  shows  that  it  is  not,  in  all  cases,  necessary  for  the  upholding  of  a 
firm  government  that  the  offender  himself  should  be  punished.  This  is 
the  natural  mode  of  maintaining  authority  ;  but  not,  in  all  cases,  the  only 
one  ;  and,  in  that  of  the  redemption  of  man,  we  see  the  wisdom  of  God 
in  its  brightest  manifestation  securing  this  end,  and  yet  opening  to  man 
the  door  of  hope.  The  strict  justice  of  the  case  required  that  the 
righteous  character  of  the  Divine  administration  should  be  upheld ;  but, 
in  fact,  by  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord  being  made  the  only  means  of 
pardon,  it  has  received  a  stamp  more  legible  and  impressive  than  the 
extreme  punishment  of  offenders,  however  awful,  while  it  connects  love 
with  justice,  and  presents  God  to  us  at  once  exact  in  righteousness  and 
affectingly  gracious  and  merciful.  "  The  Judge  himself  bore  the  punish- 
ment  of  transgression,  while  he  published  an  amnesty  to  the  guilty,  and 
thus  asserted  the  authority,  and  importance,  and  worth  of  the  law  by 
that  verv  act  which  beamed  forth  love  unspeakable,  and  displayed  a 
2  ' 


SECOXD.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  145 

compassion  which  knew  no  obstacle  but  the  unwilhngness  of  the  crinriio 
nals  to  accept  it.  The  eternal  Word  became  flesh,  and  exhibited,  in 
sufferings  and  in  death,  that  combination  of  holiness  and  mercy  which, 
beheved,  must  excite  love,  and,  if  loved,  must  produce  resemblance.'* 
(Erskiiie  on  Revealed  Religion.)  "Mercy  and  truth  meet  together, 
righteousness  and  peace  kiss  each  other."  Thus  the  vinculum,  that 
which  connects  the  death  of  Christ  with  our  salvation,  is  simply  the 
security  which  it  gives  to  the  righteous  administration  of  the  Divine 
government. 

An  objection  is  made  by  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
to  the  justice  of  laying  the  punishment  of  the  guihy  upon  the  innocent, 
which  it  will  be  necessary  briefly  to  consider.  The  objection  resolves 
itself  into  an  inquiry'  how  far  such  benevolent  interpositions  of  one  per- 
son for  another,  as  involve  sacrifice  and  suffering,  may  go  without 
violating  justice ;  and  when  the  subject  is  followed  in  this  direction,  the 
objection  will  be  found  to  be  of  no  weight. 

That  it  has  always  been  held  a  virtue  to  endure  inconveniences,  to 
encounter  danger,  and  even  to  suffer  for  the  sake  of  others,  in  certain 
circumstances,  cannot  be  denied,  and  no  one  has  ever  thought  of  con- 
trolling such  acts  by  raising  any  questions  as  to  their  justice.  Parents 
and  friends  not  only  endure  labour  and  make  sacrifices  for  their  chil- 
dren and  connections,  but  often  submit  to  positive  pain  in  accomplishing 
that  to  which  their  affection  prompts  them.  To  save  a  fellow  creature 
perishing  by  water  or  fire,  generous  minds  ofl;en  expose  themselves  to 
great  personal  risk  of  life,  and  even  sometimes  perish  in  the  attempt ; 
yet  the  claims  of  humanity  are  considered  sufficient  to  justify  such 
deeds,  which  are  never  blamed,  but  always  applauded.  No  man's  life, 
we  grant,  is  at  his  own  disposal ;  but  in  all  cases  where  it  is  agreed 
that  God,  the  only  being  who  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  hfe,  has  left  men 
at  liberty  to  offer  their  lives  for  the  benefit  of  others,  no  one  questions 
the  justice  of  their  doing  it.  Thus,  when  a  patriot  army  marches  to 
almost  certain  destruction  to  defend  its  coasts  from  foreign  invasion  and 
violence,  the  established  notion  that  the  life  of  every  man  is  placed  by 
God  at  the  disposal  of  his  country,  justifies  the  hazard.  It  is  still  a 
clearer  instance,  because  matter  of  revelation,  that  there  are  cases  in 
which  we  ought  "  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren,"  that  is  for  the 
Church  and  the  interests  of  religion  in  the  world.  Christians  are  called 
to  pursue  their  duty  of  instructing,  and  reforming,  and  saving  others, 
though,  in  some  cases,  the  active  services  into  which  they  may  be  led 
will  shorten  life  ;  and  in  times  of  persecution  it  is  obligatory  upon  them 
not  only  to  be  ready  to  suffer,  but  to  die,  rather  than  deny  Christ.  No 
one  questions  the  justice  of  this,  because  all  see  that  the  Author  and 
Lord  of  the  lives  of  men  has  given  to  them  the  right  of  thus  disposing 
of  life,  nor  do  we  ever  hear  it  urged,  that  it  was  unjust  in  him  to  require 
Vol.  II.  10 


146  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

them  to  submit  to  the  pain  of  racks  and  fires,  and  other  modes  of  violent 
deaths  which  they  certainly  did  not  deserve,  and  when,  as  to  any  crime 
meriting  pubhc  and  ignominious  death,  they  were,  doubtless,  innocent. 
These  cases  are  not  adduced  as  parallel  to  the  death  of  Christ  for 
sinners ;  but  so  far  they  agree  with  it  that,  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
providence,  and  by  express  appointment  of  God,  men  suffer  and  even 
die  for  the  benefit  of  others,  and  in  some  cases  the  morally  worthy,  the 
comparatively  innocent,  die  for  the  instruction,  and,  instrumentally,  for 
the  salvation  of  the  unworthy  and  vicious.  There  is  a  similarity  in  the 
two  cases  also  in  other  particulars,  as  that  the  suffering  danger  or  death 
is  in  both  matter  of  choice,  not  of  compulsion  or  necessity ;  and  that 
there  is  a  right  in  the  parties  to  choose  suffering  and  death,  though,  as 
we  shall  see,  this  right  in  benevolent  men  is  of  a  different  kind  to  that 
with  which  Christ  was  invested. 

Some  writers  of  great  eminence  on  the  doctrine  of  atonement  have 
urged  also,  in  answer  to  the  objection  before  us,  the  suffering  of  persons 
m  consequence  of  the  sins  of  others,  as  children  on  account  of  the 
crimes  of  their  parents,  both  by  the  natural  constitution  of  things  and 
by  the  laws  of  many  states ;  but  the  subject  does  not  appear  to  derive 
any  real  illustration  from  these  examples ;  for,  as  a  modern  writer  well 
observes,  "  the  principles  upon  which  the  catholic  opinion  is  defended 
destroy  every  kind  of  similarity  between  these  cases  and  the  sufferings 
of  Christ.  In  all  such  instances  of  the  extension  of  punishment,  persons 
suffer  for  sins  of  which  they  are  innocent,  but  without  their  consent,  in 
consequence  of  a  constitution  under  which  they  are  born,  and  by  a  dis- 
position of  events  which  they  probably  lament ;  and  their  suffering  is 
not  supposed  to  have  any  effect  in  alleviating  the  evils  incurred  by  those 
whose  punishment  they  bear."  {HilVs  Lectures.) 

In  all  the  cases  mentioned  above,  as  most  in  point  in  this  argument, 
we  grant  that  there  is  no  instance  of  satisfaction  by  vicarious  punish- 
ment ;  no  legal  substitution  of  one  person  for  another.  With  respect 
to  human  governments,  they  could  not  justly  adopt  this  principle  in  any 
case.  They  could  not  oblige  an  innocent  person  to  suffer  for  the  guilty, 
because  that  would  be  unjust  to  him ;  they  could  not  accept  his  offer, 
were  he  ever  so  anxious  to  become  the  substitute  of  another,  for  that 
would  be  unjust  to  God,  since  they  have  no  authority  from  him  so  to 
take  away  the  life  of  one  of  his  creatures,  and  the  person  himself  has 
no  authority  to  offer  it.  With  respect  to  the  Divine  government,  a 
parallel  case  is  also  impossible,  because  no  guilty  man  could  be  the 
substitute  for  his  fellows,  his  own  life  being  forfeited ;  and  no  higher 
creature  could  be  that  substitute,  of  which  we  are  fully  assured  by  this^, 
that  if  it  was  necessary  that  Christ,  who  is  infinitely  above  all  creatures, 
should  suffer  for  us,  in  order  that  God  might  be  just  in  justifying  the 
guilty,  then  his  justice  could  not  have  been  manifested  by  the  interposii 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  147 

tion  of  any  creature  whatever  in  our  behalf,  and,  therefore,  the  legal 
obstacle  to  our  pardon  must  have  remained  in  full  force.  There  can  be 
no  full  parallel  to  this  singular  and  only  case ;  but  yet,  as  to  the  ques- 
tion of  justice,  which  is  here  the  only  point  under  consideration,  it  rests 
on  the  same  principles  as  those  before  mentioned.  In  the  case  of  St. 
Paul  we  see  a  willing  sufferer  ;  he  chooses  to  suffer  and  to  die  *'  for  the 
elect's  sake,"  and  that  he  might  publish  the  Gospel  to  the  world.  He 
knew  that  this  would  be  his  lot,  and  he  glories  in  the  prospect.  He 
gave  up  cheerfully  what  might  have  remained  to  hini  of  life  by  the 
constitution  of  nature.  Was  it,  then,  unjust  in  God  to  accept  this  offer- 
ing of  generous  devotedness  for  the  good  of  mankind,  when  the  offering 
was  in  obedience  to  his  own  will  ?  Certainly  not.  Was  it  an  unjust 
act  toward  God,  that  is,  did  it  violate  the  right  of  God  over  his  life,  for 
St.  Paul  to  choose  to  die  for  the  Gospel  ?  Certainly  not.  For  God  had 
given  to  him  the  right  of  thus  disposing  of  his  life,  by  making  it  his  duty 
to  die  for  the  truth.  The  same  considerations  of  choice  and  right  unite 
in  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord,  though  the  case  itself  was  one  of  an  infi- 
nitely higher  nature,  a  circumstance  which  strengthens  but  does  not 
change  the  principle.  He  was  a  willing  substitute,  and  choice  was  in 
him  abundantly  more  free  and  unbiassed  than  it  could  be  in  a  creature, 
and  for  this  reason,  that  he  was  not  a  creature.  His  incarnation  was 
voluntary ;  and,  when  incarnate,  his  sufferings  were  still  a  matter  of 
choice  ;  nor  was  he,  in  the  same  sense  as  his  disciples,  under  the  power 
of  men.  "  No  man  taketh  my  life  from  me ;  but  I  lay  it  down  of  my- 
self." He  had  the  right  of  doing  so  in  a  sense  that  no  creature  could 
have.  He  died  not  only  because  the  Father  willed  it ;  not  because  the 
right  of  living  or  dying  had  been  conceded  to  him  as  a  moral  trust,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  apostles ;  but  because,  having  himself  the  supreme 
power  of  life  and  death,  from  his  boundless  benevolence  to  man,  he 
willed  to  die  ;  and  thus  was  there,  in  this  substitution,  a  concurrence  of 
the  Lawgiver,  and  the  consent  of  the  substitute.  To  say  that  any  thing 
is  unjust,  is  to  say  that  the  rights  of  some  one  are  invaded ;  but  if,  in 
this  case,  no  right  was  invaded,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  clear, 
then  was  there  in  the  case  nothing  of  injustice  as  assumed  in  the  objec- 
tion. The  whole  resolves  itself,  therefore,  into  a  question  not  o^  justice^ 
but  of  the  wisdom  of  admitting  a  substitute  to  take  the  place  of  the 
guilty.  In  the  circumstances,  first  of  the  willingness  of  the  substitute 
to  submit  to  the  penalty,  and  secondly  of  his  right  thus  to  dispose  of 
himself,  the  justice  of  the  proceeding  is  fully  cleared ;  and  the  question 
of  wisdom  is  to  be  determined  by  this  consideration,  whether  the  end 
of  punishment  could  be  as  well  answered  by  this  translation  of  the 
penalty  to  a  substitute  as  if  the  principals  themselves  had  personally 
been  held  to  undergo  it.  This,  when  the  whole  evangelical  scheme  is 
taken  into  account,  embracing  the  means  and  conditions  by  which  that 

2 


148  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

substitution  is  made  available,  and  the  concomitants  by  which  it  is 
attended,  as  before  explained,  is  also  obvious — the  law  of  God  is  not 
repealed  nor  relaxed,  but  established ;  those  who  continue  disobedient 
fall  into  aggravated  condemnation,  and  those  who  avail  themselves  of 
the  mercy  of  God  thus  conceded,  are  restored  to  the  capacity  and  dis- 
position of  obedience,  and  that  perfectly  and  eternally  in  a  future  state 
of  existence ;  so  that,  as  the  end  of  punishment  is  the  maintenance  of 
the  authority  of  law  and  the  character  of  the  Lawgiver,  this  end  is  even 
more  abundantly  accomplished  by  this  glorious  interposition  of  the  com- 
passion and  adorable  wisdom  of  God  our  Saviour. 

So  unfounded  is  this  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  suffer- 
ings of  Christ ;  to  which  we  may  add,  that  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
those  sufferings  to  the  Divine  justice  does  not,  in  truth,  lie  with  us,  but 
with  the  Socinians.  Different  opinions,  as  to  the  nature  and  end  of 
those  sufferings,  neither  lessen  nor  heighten  them.  The  extreme  and 
emphatic  sufferings  of  our  Lord  is  a  fact  which  stands  unalterably  upon 
the  record  of  the  inspired  history.  We  who  regard  Christ  as  suffering 
by  virtue  of  a  voluntary  substitution  of  himself  in  our  room  and  stead, 
can  account  for  such  agonies,  and,  by  the  foregoing  arguments,  can 
reconcile  them  to  justice  ;  but,  as  our  Lord  was  perfectly  and  absolutely 
innocent,  as  "he  did  no  sin,"  and  was,  in  this  respect,  distinguished  from 
all  men  who  ever  lived,  and  who  have  all  sinned,  by  being  entirely 
"  holy  and  harmless,"  "  separated  from  sinners,"  how  will  they  reconcile 
it  to  Divine  justice  that  he  should  be  thus  as  pre-eminent  in  suffering  as 
he  was  in  virtue,  and  when,  according  to  them,  he  sustained  a  personal 
character  only,  and  not  a  vicarious  one  ?  For  this  difficulty  they  have, 
and  can  have  no  rational  solution. 

As  to  the  passage  in  Ezekiel  xviii,  20,  which  Socinians  sometimes 
urge  against  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  vicarious  passion,  it  is  briefly  but 
satisfactorily  answered  by  Grotius.  "  Socinus  objects  from  Ezekiel, 
*  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die ;  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son.'  But 
in  these  words  God  does  not  teach  us  what  he  must  necessarily  do  ;  but 
what  [in  a  particular  case]  he  had  freely  decreed  to  do.  It  no  more, 
therefore,  follows  from  hence,  that  it  is  unjust  altogether  for  a  son  to 
bear  any  part  of  the  punishment  of  his  father's  crime,  than  that  it  is  un- 
just for  a  sinner  not  to  die.  The  place  itself  evinces  that  God  does  not 
here  treat  of  perpetual  and  immutable  right ;  but  of  that  ordinary  course 
of  his  providence  which  he  was  determined  hereafter  to  pursue  with 
respect  to  the  Jews,  that  he  might  cut  off  all  occasion  of  complaint." 
(De  Satis factione.) 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  149 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

REDE]HPTIo^* — Sacrifices  of  the  Law. 

It  has,  then,  been  estabUshed,  upon  the  testimony  of  various  texts,  in 
which  the  doctrine  is  laid  down,  not  in  the  language  of  metaphor  and 
allusion,  but  clearly  and  expressly,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  vicarious 
and  propitiatory ;  and  that  by  it  a  satisfaction  was  offered  to  the  Divine 
justice  for  the  transgressions  of  men  ;  in  consideration  of  which  pardon 
and  salvation  are  offered  to  them  in  the  Gospel  through  faith ;  and  I 
have  preferred  to  adduce  these  clear  and  cogent  proofs  of  this  great 
principle  of  our  religion,  in  the  first  place,  from  those  passages  in  the 
Nevv^  Testament,  in  which  there  are  no  sacrificial  terms,  no  direct  allu- 
sions  to  the  atonements  of  the  law,  and  other  parts  of  the  Levitical 
piacular  system,  to  show  that,  independent  of  the  latter  class  of  texts, 
the  doctrine  may  be  established  against  the  Socinians ;  and,  also,  that 
by  having  first  settled  the  meaning  of  the  leading  passages,  we  may 
more  satisfactorily  determine  the  sense  in  which  the  evangelists  and 
apostles  use  the  sacrificial  terms  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  reference 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  a  subject  in  which,  from  its  nature,  the  opponents 
of  the  atonement,  find  a  freedom  of  remark  and  license  of  criticism,  by 
which  they  are  apt  to  mislead  and  perplex  the  unwary.  This  second 
class  of  texts,  however,  when  approached  by  the  light  of  the  argument 
already  made  good,  and  exhibited  also  in  that  of  their  own  evidence, 
will  afford  the  most  triumphant  refutation  of  the  notions  of  those  who, 
to  their  denial  of  the  Godhead  of  our  Lord,  add  a  proud  and  Pharisaic 
rejection  of  the  sacrificial  efficacy  of  his  death. 

We  shall  not,  in  the  first  instance,  advert  to  the  sacrifice^MRftder  the 
patriarchal  dispensation,  as  to  the  origin  of  which  a  difference  of  opinion 
exists,  a  subject  on  which  some  remarks  will  be  offered  in  the  sequel. 
Among  the  Jews,  sacrifices  were  unquestionably  of  Divine  original ;  and 
as  terms  taken  from  them  are  found  applied  so  frequently  to  Christ  and 
to  his  sufferings  in  the  New  Testament,  they  serve  farther  to  explain 
that  pecuUarity  under  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  apostles  regarded 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  afford  additional  proof  that  it  was  considered 
by  them  as  a  sacrifice  of  expiation,  as  the  grand  universal  sin  offering 
for  the  whole  world. 

He  is  announced  by  John,  his  forerunner,  as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  ;" 
and  that  not  with  reference  to  meekness  or  any  other  moral  virtue ; 
but  with  an  accompanying  phrase,  which  would  communicate  to  a  Jew 
the  full  sacrificial  sense  of  the  term  employed — "  the  Lamb  of  God 
which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  He  is  called  "  our  tass- 
ovER,  sacrificed  for  us."     He  is  said  to  have  given  "  himself  for  us,  an 

2 


150  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

OFFERING  and  A  SACRIFICE  to  GoD,  foF  a  sweet-smelUng  savour."  As 
a  Priest,  it  was  necessary  he  should  have  somewhat  to  offer ;  and  he 
offered  himself,  "  his  own  blood,"  to  which  is  ascribed  the  washing 
away  of  sin,  and  our  eternal  redemption.  He  is  declared  to  have  "  put 
away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  heviself,"  to  have  "  by  himself  purged 
our  sins,"  to  have  "  sanctified  the  people  by  his  own  blood,"  to  have 
"  offered  to  God  one  sacrifice  for  sins."  Add  to  these,  and  innume- 
rable  other  similar  expressions  and  allusions,  the  argument  of  the  apostle 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  which,  by  proving  at  length,  that  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  was  superior  in  efficacy  to  the  sacrifices  of  the  law, 
he  most  unequivocally  assumes,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  a  sacrifice 
and  sin  offering,  for  without  that  it  would  no  more  have  been  capable 
of  comparison  with  the  sacrifices  of  the  law,  than  the  death  of  John  the 
Baptist,  St.  Stephen,  or  St.  James,  all  martyrs  and  sufferers  for  the  truth, 
who  had  recently  sealed  their  testimony  with  their  blood.  This  very- 
comparison,  we  may  boldly  affirm,  is  utterly  unaccountable  and  absurd 
on  any  hypothesis  which  denies  the  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  for  what  relation 
could  his  death  have  to  the  Levitical  immolations  and  offerings,  if  it  had 
no  sacrificial  character?  Nothing  could,  in  fact,  be  more  misleading, 
and  even  absurd,  than  to  apply  those  terms,  which,  both  among  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  were  in  use  to  express  the  various  processes  and  means 
of  atonement  and  piacular  propitiation,  if  the  apostles  and  Christ  himself 
did  not  intend  to  represent  his  death  strictly  as  an  expiation  for  sin : — 
misleading,  because  such  would  be  the  natural  and  necessary  inference 
from  the  terms  themselves,  which  had  acquired  this  as  their  established 
meaning ;  and  absurd,  because  if,  as  Socinians  say,  they  used  them 
metaphorically,  there  was  not  even  an  ideal  resemblance  between  the 
figure,  and  that  which  it  was  intended  to  illustrate.  So  totally  irrele- 
vant, indeed,  will  those  terms  appear  to  any  notion  entertained  of  the 
death  of  Christ  which  excludes  its  expiatory  character,  that  to  assume 
that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  used  them  as  metaphors,  is  profanely  to 
assume  them  to  be  such  writers  as  would  not  in  any  other  case  be  tole- 
rated  ;  writers  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  commonest  rules  of  elocu- 
tion,  and  therefore  wholly  unfit  to  be  teachers  of  others,  not  only  in 
religion  but  in  things  of  inferior  importance. 

The  use  of  such  terms,  we  have  said,  would  not  only  be  wholly  ab- 
surd, but  criminally  misleading  to  the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  to  the  Jews, 
who  were  first  converted  to  Christianity.  To  them  the  notion  of  pro- 
pitiatory offerings,  offerings  to  avert  the  displeasure  of  the  gods,  and 
which  expiated  the  crimes  of  offenders,  was  most  familiar,  and  the 
corresponding  terms  in  constant  use.  The  bold  denial  of  this  by  Dr. 
Priestley  might  well  bring  upon  him  the  reproof  of  Archbishop  Magee, 
who,  after  establishing  this  point  from  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers,  ob- 
serves, "  So  clearly  does  their  language  announce  the  notion  of  a  pro. 


SECOXD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  151 

pitiatory  atonement,  that  if  we  would  avoid  an  imputation  on  Dr.  Priest, 
ley's  fairness,  we  are  driven,  of  necessity,  to  question  the  extent  of  his 
acquaintance  with  those  writers."  The  reader  may  consult  the  instances 
given  by  this  writer,  in  No.  5  of  his  Illustrations  appended  to  his  Dis- 
courses  on  the  Atonement ;  and  particularly  the  tenth  chapter  of 
Grotius's  De  Satisfactione,  whose  learning  has  most  amply  illustrate<:l 
and  firmly  settled  this  view  of  the  heathen  sacrifices.  The  use  to  be 
made  of  this  in  the  argument  is,  that  as  the  apostles  found  the  very 
terms  they  used  with  reference  to  the  nature  and  efficacy  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  fixed  in  an  expiatory  signification  among  the  Greeks,  they 
could  not,  in  honesty,  use  them  in  a  distant  figurative  sense,  much  less 
in  a  contrary  one,  without  due  notice  of  their  having  invested  them  with 
a  new  import  being  given  to  their  readers.  From  ayog,  a  pollution,  an 
impurity,  which  was  to  be  expiated  by  sacrifice,  are  derived  a}/vi^w  and 
uyic/.^u,  which  denote  the  act  of  expiation  ;  xct&ai^ui  too,  to  purify,  cleanse, 
is  applied  to  the  effect  of  expiation ;  and  jXa^w  denotes  the  method  of 
propitiating  the  gods  by  sacrifice.  These,  and  other  words  of  similar 
import,  are  used  by  the  authors  of  the  Septuagint,  and  by  the  evangehsts 
and  apostles ;  but  they  give  no  notice  of  using  them  in  any  strange  and 
altered  sense ;  and  when  they  apply  them  to  the  death  of  Christ,  they 
must,  therefore,  be  understood  to  use  them  in  their  received  meaning. 

In  hke  manner  the  Jews  had  their  expiatory  sacrifices,  and  the  terms 
and  phrases  used  in  them  are,  in  like  manner,  employed  by  the  apostles 
to  characterize  the  death  of  their  Lord ;  and  they  would  have  been  as 
guilty  of  misleading  their  Jewish  as  their  Gentile  readers,  had  they  em- 
ployed them  in  a  new  sense,  and  without  warning,  which,  unquestionably, 
they  never  gave. 

The  force  of  this  has  been  felt,  and  as,  in  order  to  avoid  it,  the  two 
points,  the  expiatory  nature  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  and  their  typical 
signature  have  been  questioned,  it  will  be  necessary  to  establish  each. 

As  to  the  expiatory  nature  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  law,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  show  that  all  the  Levitical  offerings  were  of  this  character. 
There  were  also  offerings  for  persons  and  for  things  prescribed  for  puri- 
fication, which  were  incidental ;  but  even  they  grew  out  of  the  leading 
notion  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  and  that  legal  purification  which  resulted 
from  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is  enough  to  show  that  the  grand  and 
eminent  sacrifices  of  the  Jews  were  strictly  expiator}^,  and  that  by  them 
the  offerers  were  released  from  punishment  and  death,  for  which  ends 
they  were  appointed  by  the  Lawgiver. 

When  we  speak,  too,  of  vicarious  sacrifice,  we  do  not  mean,  either 
on  the  one  hand,  such  a  substitution  as  that  the  victim  should  bear  the 
same  quantum  of  pain  and  suflfering  as  the  offender  himself;  or,  on  the 
other,  that  it  was  put  in  the  place  of  the  oflTender  as  a  mere  symbolical 
act,  by  which  he  confessed  his  desert  of  punishment ;  but  a  substitution 

2 


152  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

made  by  Divine  appointment,  by  which  the  victim  was  exposed  to  suffer- 
ings and  death  instead  of  the  offender,  in  virtue  of  which  the  offender 
himself  should  be  released.  In  this  view  one  can  scarcely  conceive 
why  so  able  a  writer  as  Archbishop  Magee  should  prefer  to  use  the 
term  "  vicarious  import,''^  rather  than  the  simple  and  estabhshed  term 
"  vicarious;"  since  the  Antinomian  notion  of  substitution  may  be  other- 
wise sufficiently  guarded  against,  and  the  phrase  "  vicarious  import''^  is 
certainly  capable  of  being  resolved  into  that  figurative  notion  of  mere 
symbohcal  action,  which,  however  plausible,  does,  in  fact,  deprive  the 
ancient  sacrifices  of  their  typical,  and  the  oblation  of  Christ  of  its  real 
efficacy.  Vicarious  acting,  is  acting  for  another ;  vicarious  suffering, 
is  suffering  for  another  ;  but  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  that  suffer- 
ing in  the  case  of  Christ,  is  to  be  determined  by  the  doctrine  of  Scripture 
at  large,  and  not  wholly  by  the  term  itself,  which  is,  however,  useful  for 
this  purpose,  (and  therefore  to  be  preserved,)  that  it  mdicates  the  sense 
in  which  those  who  use  it  understand  the  declaration  of  Scripture,  that 
Christ  "  died  for  us,"  to  be  that  he  died  not  merely  ybr  our  benefit,  but 
in  our  stead ;  in  other  words,  that  but  for  his  having  died,  those  who 
believe  in  him  would  personally  have  suffered  that  death  which  is  the 
penalty  of  every  violation  of  the  law  of  God. 

That  sacrifices  under  the  law  were  expiatory  and  vicarious,  admits 
of  abundant  proof. 

The  chief  objections  made  to  this  doctrine,  are,  first,  that  under  the 
law,  in  all  capital  cases,  the  offender,  upon  legal  proof  or  conviction, 
was  doomed  to  die,  and  that  no  sacrifice  could  exempt  him  from  the 
penalty.  Secondly,  that  in  all  lower  cases  to  which  the  law  had  not 
attached  capital  punishment,  but  pecuniary  mulcts,  or  personal  labour 
or  servitude,  upon  their  non-payment,  this  penalty  was  to  be  strictly 
executed,  and  none  could  plead  any  privilege  or  exemption  on  account 
of  sacrifice  ;  and  that  v/hen  sacrifices  were  ordained  with  a  pecuniary 
mulct,  they  are  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  o^  fine,  one  part  of  which 
was  paid  to  the  state,  the  other  to  the  Church.  This  was  the  mode  of 
argument  adopted  by  the  author  of  "the  Moral  Philosopher,"  and 
nothing  of  weight  has  been  added  to  these  objections  since. 

Now  much  of  this  may  be  granted,  without  any  prejudice  to  the  argu- 
ment ;  and,  indeed,  is  no  more  than  the  most  orthodox  writers  on  this 
subject  have  often  adverted  to.  The  law,  under  which  the  Jews  were 
placed,  was  at  once,  as  to  them,  both  a  moral  and  a  political  law ;  and 
the  Lawgiver  excepted  certain  offences  from  the  benefit  of  a  pardon, 
which  implied  exemption  from  temporal  death,  which  was  the  state 
penalty,  and  therefore  would  accept  no  atonement  for  such  transgres- 
sions. Blasphemy,  idolatry,  murder,  and  adultery,  were  those  "  pre- 
sumptuous sins"  which  were  thus  exempted,  and  the  reason  will  be 
seen  in  the  political  relation  of  the  people  to  God,  In  refusing  this 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES,  153 

exemption  from  punishment  in  this  world,  in  certain  cases,  respect  was 
had  to  the  order  and  benefit  of  society.  Running  parallel,  however, 
with  this  political  application  of  the  law  to  the  Jews  as  subjects  of  the 
theocracy,  we  see  the  authority  of  the  moral  law  kept  over  them  as  men 
and  creatures ;  and  if  these  "  presumptuous  sins,"  of  blasphemy  and 
idolatry,  of  murder  and  adultery,  and  a  few  others,  were  the  only  capi- 
tal  crimes,  considered  'politically,  they  were  not  the  only  capital  crimes, 
considered  morally,  that  is,  there  were  other  crimes  which  would  have 
subjected  the  offender  to  death,  but  for  this  provision  of  expiatory  obla- 
tions. The  true  question  then  is,  whether  such  sacrifices  were  appointed 
by  God,  and  accepted  instead  of  the  personal  punishment  or  life  of  the 
offender,  which  otherwise  would  have  been  forfeited,  as  in  the  other 
cases  ;  and  if  so,  if  the  Ufe  of  animal  sacrifices  was  accepted  instead  of 
the  life  of  man,  then  the  notion  that  they  were  mere  mulcts  and  pecu- 
niary penalties  falls  to  the  ground,  and  the  vicarious  nature  of  most  of  the 
Levitical  oblations  is  estabhshed. 

That  other  offences,  beside  those  above  mentioned,  were  capital,  that 
is,  exposed  the  offender  to  death,  is  clear  from  this,  that  all  offences 
against  the  law  had  this  capital  character.  As  death  was  the  sanction 
of  the  commandment  given  to  Adam,  so  every  one  who  transgressed 
any  part  of  the  law  of  Moses  became  guilty  of  death  ;  every  man  was 
accursed,  that  is,  devoted  to  die,  who  "  continued  not  in  all  things  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  the  law ;"  "  the  man  only  that  doeth  these  things 
shall  live  by  them,"  was  the  rule  ;  and  it  w^as,  therefore,  to  redeem  the 
offenders  from  this  penalty  that  sacrifices  were  appointed.  So,  with 
reference  to  the  great  day  of  expiation,  we  read,  "  For  on  that  day  shall 
the  priest  make  an  atonement  for  you,  to  cleanse  you,  that  you  may  be 
clean  from  all  your  sins ;  and  this  shall  be  an  everlasting  statute  unto 
you,  to  make  an  atonement  for  the  children  of  Israel  for  all  their  sins, 
once  a  year,"  Lev.  xvi,  30-34. 

To  prove  that  this  was  the  intention  and  effect  of  the  annual  sacrifices 
of  the  Jews,  we  need  do  Uttle  more  than  refer  to  Leviticus  xvii,  10,  11, 
"  I  will  set  my  face  against  that  soul  that  eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him 
off*  from  among  his  people.  For  the  hfe  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood;  and 
I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  an  atonement  for  your 
SOULS  :  for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul." 
Here  the  blood  which  is  said  to  make  atonement  for  the  soul,  is  the  blood 
of  the  victims,  and  to  make  an  atonement  for  the  soul,  is  the  same  as  to 
be  a  ransom  for  the  soul,  as  will  appear  by  referring  to  Exodus  xxx, 
12-16,  and  to  be  a  ransom  for  the  soul,  is  to  avert  death.  "They  shall 
give  every  man  a  ransom  for  his  soul  unto  the  Lord,  that  there  be  no 
plague  among  them,"  by  which  their  lives  might  be  suddenly  taken 
away.  The  "  soul"  is  also  here  used  obviously  for  the  life ;  the  blood, 
or  the  life,  of  the  victims  in  all  the  sacrifices,  was  substituted  for  the  life 

? 


164  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  man,  to  preserve  him  from  death,  and  the  victims  were  therefore 
vicarious.  (Vide  Outram  de  Sacrif.  hb.  1,  c.  xxii.) 

The  Hebrew  word  rendered  atonement,  "lij^,  signifying  primarily  to 
cover,  overspread,  has  been  the  subject  of  some  evasive  criticisms.  It 
comes,  however,  in  the  secondary  sense  to  signify  atonement,  or  pro- 
pitiation,  because  the  effect  of  that  is  to  cover,  or,  in  Scripture  meaning, 
to  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  offences.  The  Septuagint,  also,  renders  it 
by  s^iXadwixai,  to  appease,  to  maJce  propitious.  It  is  used,  indeed,  where 
the  means  of  atonement  are  not  of  the  sacrificial  kind,  but  these  "  in- 
stances equally  serve  to  evince  the  Scripture  sense  of  the  term,  in  cases 
of  transgression,  to  be  that  of  reconcihng  the  ofiended  Deity,  by  avert- 
ing his  displeasure ;  so  that  when  the  atonement  for  sin  is  said  to  be 
made  by  sacrifice,  no  doubt  can  remain,  that  the  sacrifice  was  strictly 
a  sacrifice  of  propitiation.  Agreeably  to  this  conclusion  we  find  it  ex- 
pressly declared,  in  the  several  cases  of  piacular  oblations  for  trans- 
gression of  the  Divine  commands,  that  the  sin  for  which  atonement  was 
made  by  those  oblations,  should  he  for  given. ^^  {Magee's  Discourses,  vol. 
i,  page  332.) 

As  the  notion  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  were  not  vicarious,  but 
mere  mulcts  and  fines,  is  overturned  by  the  general  appointment  of  the 
hlood  to  he  an  atonement  for  the  souls,  the  forfeited  lives  of  men,  so  also 
is  it  contradicted  by  particular  instances.  Let  us  refer  to  Lev.  v,  15,  16, 
"  If  a  soul  commit  a  trespass,  and  sin  through  ignorance,  in  the  holy 
things  of  the  Lord,  he  shall  make  amends  for  the  harm  that  he  hath 
done  in  the  holy  thing,  and  shall  add  a  fifth  part  thereto,  and  shall  give 
it  to  the  priest."  Here,  indeed,  is  the  proper  "fine"  for  the  trespass; 
but  it  is  added.  "  he  shall  bring  for  his  trespass  unto  the  Lord,  a  ram 
without  blemish,  and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him,  with 
the  ram  of  the  trespass  offering,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him."  Thus, 
then,  so  far  from  the  sacrifice  being  the  fne,  the  fine  is  distinguished 
from  it,  and  with  the  ram  only  was  the  atonement  made  to  the  Lord  for 
his  trespass.  Nor  can  the  ceremonies,  with  which  the  trespass  and  sin 
offerings  were  accompanied,  agree  with  any  notion  but  that  of  their 
vicarious  character.  The  worshipper,  conscious  of  his  trespass,  brought 
an  animal,  his  own  property,  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle.  This  was 
not  an  eucharistical  act,  not  a  memorial  of  mercies  received,  but  of  sins 
committed.  He  laid  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  animal,  the  sym- 
bolical act  of  transfer  of  punishment,  then  slew  it  with  his  own  hand, 
and  delivered  it  to  the  priest,  who  burnt  the  fat  and  part  of  the  animal 
upon  the  altar,  and  having  sprinkled  part  of  the  blood  upon  the  altar, 
and,  in  some  cases,  upon  the  offerer  himself,  poured  the  rest  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  altar.  And  thus,  we  are  told,  "the  priest  shall  make  an 
atonement  for  him,  as  concerning  his  sin,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him." 
So  clearly  is  it  made  manifest  by  these  actions,  and  by  the  description 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  155 

of  their  nature  and  end,  that  the  animal  bore  the  punishment  of  the 
offender,  and  that  by  this  appointment  he  was  reconciled  to  God,  and 
obtained  the  forgiveness  of  his  offences. 

An  equally  strong  proof,  that  the  life  of  the  animal  sacrifice  was 
accepted  in  place  of  the  life  of  man,  is  afforded  by  the  fact,  that  atone- 
ment was  required  by  the  law  to  be  made,  by  sin  offerings  and  burnt 
offerings,  for  even  bodily  distempers  and  disorders.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  the  argument  to  explain  the  distinctions  between  these  various  obla- 
tions, (2)  nor  yet  to  inquire  into  the  reason  which  required  propitiation 
to  be  made  for  corporal  infirmities,  which,  in  many  cases,  could  not  be 
avoided.  They  were,  however,  thus  connected  with  sin  as  the  cause 
of  all  these  disorders,  and  God,  who  had  placed  his  residence  among 
the  Israelites,  insisted  upon  a  perfect  ceremonial  purity,  to  impress  upon 
them  a  sense  of  his  moral  purity,  and  the  necessity  of  purification  of 
mind.  Whether  these  were  the  reasons,  or  whatever  other  reason  there 
might  be  in  the  case,  and  whether  it  is  at  all  discoverable  by  us,  all  such 
unclean  persons  were  Uable  to  death,  and  were  exempted  from  it  only 
by  animal  sacrifices.  This  appears  from  the  conclusion  to  all  the  Le- 
yitical  directions  concerning  the  ceremonial  to  be  followed  in  all  such 
cases.  Lev.  xv,  31,  '*  Thus  shall  ye  separate  the  children  of  Israel 
from  their  uncleanness  ;  that  they  die  kot  in  (or  by)  their  unclean- 
ness,  when  they  defile  my  tabernacle  which  is  among  them.''''  So  that  by 
virtue  of  the  sin  offerings,  the  children  of  Israel  were  saved  from  a 
death,  which  otherwise  they  would  have  suffered  for  their  uncleanness, 
and  that  by  substituting  the  life  of  the  animal  for  the  life  of  the  offerer. 
Nor  can  it  be  urged,  that  death  is,  in  these  instances,  threatened  only 
as  a  punishment  of  not  observing  these  laws  of  purification,  for  the 
reason  given  in  the  passage  just  quoted,  for  the  threatening  of  death  is 
not  hypothetical  upon  their  not  bringing  the  prescribed  atonement,  but 
is  grounded  upon  the  fact  of  "  defiling  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord,  which 
was  among  them,"  which  is  supposed  to  be  done  by  all  uncleanness  as 
such,  in  the  first  instance. 

As  a  farther  proof  of  the  vicarious  character  of  the  principal  sacri- 
fices  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  we  may  instance  those  statedly  offered  for 
the  whole  congregation.  Every  day  were  offered  two  lambs,  one  in 
the  morning,  and  the  other  in  the  evening,  "  for  a  continual  burnt  offer- 
ing." To  these  daily  victims  were  to  be  added,  weekly,  two  other  lambs  for 
the  burnt  offering  of  every  Sabbath.  None  of  these  could  be  considered 
in  the  light  of  fines  for  offences,  since  they  were  offered  for  no  particu- 
lar persons,  and  must  be  considered,  therefore,  unless  resolved  into  an 
unmeaning  ceremony,  piacular  and  vicarious.  To  pass  over,  however, 
the  monthly  sacrifices,  and  those  offered  at  the  great  feasts,  it  is  suffi- 

(2)  On  this  subject,  see  Outram  De  Sacrificiis. 


156  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

cient  to  fix  upon  those  which  are  so  often  alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  offered  on  the  solemn  anniversary  of  expiation.  On  that 
day,  to  other  prescribed  sacrifices,  were  to  be  added  another  ram  for  a 
burnt  offering,  and  another  goat,  the  most  eminent  of  all  the  sacrifices, 
for  a  sin  offering,  whose  blood  was  to  be  carried  by  the  high  priest  into 
the  inner  sanctuary,  which  was  not  done  by  the  blood  of  any  other  vic- 
tim, except  the  bullock,  which  was  offered  the  same  day  as  a  sin  offering 
for  the  family  of  Aaron.  "  The  circumstances  of  this  ceremony,  whereby 
atonement  was  to  be  made  ^for  all  the  sins^  of  the  whole  Jewish  people, 
are  so  strikingly  significant  that  they  deserve  a  particular  detail.  On  the 
day  appointed  for  this  general  expiation,  the  priest  is  commanded  to 
offer  a  bullock  and  a  goat,  as  sin  offerings,  the  one  for  himself,  and  the 
other  for  the  people,  and  having  sprinkled  the  blood  of  these,  in  due 
form,  before  the  mercy  seat,  to  lead  forth  a  second  goat,  denominated 
the  scape  goat ;  and  after  laying  both  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
scape  goat,  and  confessing  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  people,  to 
fut  them  upon  the  head  of  the  goat,  and  to  send  the  animal,  thus  bear- 
ing the  sins  of  the  people,  away  into  the  wilderness ;  in  this  manner 
expressing,  by  an  action  which  cannot  be  misunderstood,  that  the  atone- 
ment, which  it  is  affirmed  was  to  be  effected  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  sin 
offering,  consisted  in  removing  from  the  people  their  iniquities  by  this 
translation  of  them  to  the  animal.  For  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  the 
ceremony  of  the  scape  goat  is  not  a  distinct  one ;  it  is  a  continuation 
of  the  process,  and  is  evidently  the  concluding  part,  and  symbolical 
consummation  of  the  sin  offering.  So  that  the  transfer  of  the  iniquities 
of  the  people  upon  the  head  of  the  scape  goat,  and  the  bearing  them 
away  into  the  wilderness,  manifestly  imply,  that  the  atonement  effected 
by  the  sacrifice  of  the  sin  offering  consisted  in  the  transfer,  and  conse- 
quent removal  of  those  iniquities."  {ISIagee's  Discourses.) 

How,  then,  is  this  impressive  and  singular  ceremonial  to  be  explained  ? 
Shall  we  resort  to  the  notion  of  mulcts  and  fines  ?  but  if  so,  then  this 
and  other  stated  sacrifices  must  be  considered  in  the  light  of  penal  enact- 
ments. But  this  cannot  agree  with  the  appointment  of  such  sacrifices 
annually  in  succeeding  generations — "  this  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever 
unto  you."  The  law  appoints  a  certain  day  in  the  year  for  expiating 
the  sins  both  of  the  high  priest  himself  and  of  the  whole  congregation, 
and  that  for  all  high  priests,  and  all  generations  of  the  congregation. 
Now,  could  a  law  be  enacted,  inflicting  a  certain  penalty,  at  a  certain 
time,  upon  a  whole  people,  as  well  as  upon  their  high  priest,  thus  pre- 
suming upon  their  actual  transgression  of  it  ?  The  sacrifice  was  also  for 
sins  in  general^  and  yet  the  penalty,  if  it  were  one,  is  not  greater  than 
individual  persons  were  oflen  obhged  to  undergo  for  single  trespasses. 
Nothing,  certainly,  can  be  more  absurd  than  this  hypothesis.  {Vide 
Chapman's  Euselius.) 
til 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  157 

Shall  we  account  for  it  by  saying,  that  sacrifices  were  offered  for  the 
benefit  of  the  worshipper,  but  exclude  the  notion  of  expiation  ?  But  here 
we  are  obliged  to  confine  the  benefit  to  reconciliation  and  the  taking 
away  of  sins,  and  that  by  the  appointed  means  of  the  shedding  of  bloody 
and  the  presentation  of  blood  in  the  holy  place,  accompanied  by  the 
expressive  ceremony  of  imposition  of  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  vic- 
tim, the  import  of  which  act  is  fixed  beyond  all  controversy,  by  the 
priest's  confessing,  at  the  same  time,  over  that  victim,  the  sins  of  all  the 
people,  and  imprecating  upon  its  head  the  vengeance  due  to  them,  Lev. 
xvi,  21. 

Shall  we  content  ourselves  with  merely  saying  that  this  was  a  sym- 
bol ;  but  the  question  remains  of  what  was  it  the  symbol  ?  To  determine 
that,  let  the  several  parts  of  the  symbolic  action  be  enumerated.  Here 
is  confession  of  sin — confession  before  God,  at  the  door  of  his  taberna- 
cle— the  substitution  of  a  victim — the  figurative  transfer  of  sins  to  that 
victim — the  shedding  of  blood,  which  God  appointed  to  make  atonement 
for  the  soul — the  carrying  the  blood  into  the  holiest  place,  the  very  per- 
mission  of  which  clearly  marked  the  Divine  acceptance — the  bearing 
away  of  iniquity — and  the  actual  reconciliation  of  the  people  to  God. 
If,  then,  this  is  symbohcal,  it  has  nothing  correspondent  with  it ;  it  never 
had  or  can  have  any  thing  correspondent  to  it  but  the  sacrificial  death 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  communication  of  the  benefits  of  his  passion  in 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  to  those  that  believe  in  him,  and  their  reconcilia- 
tion with  God. 

Shall  we,  finally,  say,  that  those  sacrifices  had  respect  not  to  God  to 
obtain  pardon  by  expiation ;  but  to  the  offerer,  teaching  him  moral  les- 
sons, and  calling  forth  moral  dispositions  ?  We  answer,  that  this  hypo- 
thesis leaves  many  of  the  essential  circumstances  of  the  ceremonial 
wholly  unaccounted  for.  The  tabernacle  and  temple  were  erected  for 
the  residence  of  God,  by  his  own  command.  There  it  was  his  will  to 
be  approached,  and  to  these  sacred  places  the  victims  were  required  to 
be  brought.  Any  where  else  they  might  as  well  have  been  offered,  if 
they  had  had  respect  only  to  the  offerer ;  but  they  were  required  to  be 
brought  to  God,  to  be  offered  according  to  a  prescribed  ritual,  and  by  an 
order  of  men  appointed  for  that  purpose.  "  But  there  is  no  other  rea- 
son why  they  should  be  offered  in  the  sanctuary-,  than  this,  that  they 
Were  offered  to  the  inhabitant  of  the  sanctuary ;  nor  could  they  be 
offered  to  him  without  having  respect  to  him,  or  without  his  being  the 
object  of  their  efficacy,  as  in  the  case  of  solemn  prayers  addressed  to 
him.  There  were  some  \dctims  whose  blood,  on  the  day  of  atonement, 
was  to  be  carried  into  the  inner  sanctuary ;  but  for  what  purpose  can 
we  suppose  the  blood  to  have  been  carried  into  the  most  sacred  part  of 
the  Divine  residence,  and  that  on  the  day  of  atonement,  except  to  obtain 
the  favour  of  him  in  whose  presence  it  was  sprinkled?"  {Outram  De 

2 


15^  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Sacrificiis,)  To  this  we  may  add,  that  the  reason  given  for  these  sacred 
services  is  not  in  any  case  a  mere  moral  effect  to  be  produced  upon  the 
minds  of  the  worshippers ;  they  were  to  make  atonement,  that  is,  to 
avert  God's  displeasure,  that  the  people  might  not  "  die." 

We  may  find  also  another  most  explicit  illustration  in  the  sacrifice  of 
the  passover.  The  sacrificial  character  of  this  offering  is  strongly 
marked ;  for  it  was,  Corban,  an  offering  brought  to  the  tabernacle ;  it 
was  slain  in  the  sanctuaiy,  and  the  blood  sprinkled  upon  the  altar  by  the 
priests.  It  derives  its  name  from  the  passing  over,  and  sparing  the 
houses  of  the  Israelites,  on  the  door  posts  of  which  the  blood  of  the  im- 
molated lamb  was  sprinkled,  when  the  first  born  in  the  houses  of  the 
Egyptians  were  slain ;  and  thus  we  have  another  instance  of  life  being 
spared  by  the  instituted  means  of  animal  sacrifice.  Nor  need  we  con- 
fine ourselves  to  particular  instances — "almost  all  things,"  says  an 
authority,  who  surely  knew  his  subject,  "  are  by  the  law  purged  with 
blood,  and  without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission." 

By  their  very  law  and  by  constant  usage,  then,  were  the  Jews  fami- 
liarized to  the  notion  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  as  well  as  by  the  history 
contained  in  their  sacred  books,  especially  in  Genesis,  which  speaks  of 
the  vicarious  sacrifices  offered  by  the  patriarchs,  and  the  book  of  Job, 
in  which  that  patriarch  is  recorded  to  have  oflfered  sacrifices  for  the 
supposed  sins  of  his  sons,  and  Eliphaz  is  commanded  by  a  Divine  ora- 
cle, to  offer  a  burnt  offering  for  himself  and  his  friends,  "  lest  God  should 
deal  with  them  after  their  folly. ^^ 

On  the  sentiments  of  the  uninspired  Jewish  writers  on  this  point,  the 
substitution  of  the  life  of  the  animal  for  that  of  the  offerer,  and,  conse- 
quently, the  expiatory  nature  of  their  sacrifices,  Outram  has  given  many 
quotations  frOm  their  writings,  which  the  reader  may  consult  in  his  work 
on  Sacrifices.  Two  or  three  only  need  be  adduced  by  way  of  speci- 
men. R.  Levi  Ben  Gerson  says,  "  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the 
offerers  was  designed  to  indicate,  that  their  sins  were  removed  from 
themselves,  and  transferred  to  the  animal."  Isaac  Ben  Arama — "  he 
transfers  his  sins  from  himself,  and  lays  them  upon  the  head  of  his  vic- 
tim." R.  Moses  Ben  Nachman  says,  with  respect  to  a  sinner  offering 
a  victim,  "  It  was  just  that  his  blood  should  be  shed,  and  that  his  body 
should  be  burned ;  but  the  Creator,  of  his  mercy,  accepted  this  victim 
from  him,  as  his  substitute  and  ransom  ;  that  the  blood  of  the  animal 
might  be  shed  instead  of  his  blood ;  that  is,  that  the  blood  of  the  animal 
might  be  given  for  his  hfe." 

Full  of  these  ideas  of  vicarious  expiation,  then,  the  apostles  wrote 
and  spoke,  and  the  Jews  of  their  time  and  in  subsequent  ages  heard  and 
read  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Socinian  pretence  is,  that 
the  inspired  penmen  used  the  sacrificial  terms  which  occur  in  their 
writings  figuratively ;  but  we  not  only  reply,  as  before,  that  they  could 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  159 

not  do  this  honestly,  unless  they  had  given  notice  of  this  new  appUca* 
tion  of  the  estabhshed  terms  of  the  Jewish  theology  ;  but  that  if  this  be 
assumed,  their  writings  leave  us  wholly  at  a  loss  to  discover  what  it 
really  was  which  they  intended  to  teach  by  these  sacrificial  terms  and 
allusions.  They  are,  themselves,  utterly  silent  as  to  this,  and  the  vary- 
ing theories  of  those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  in  fact,  con- 
fess that  their  writings  afford  no  solution  of  the  difhculty.  If,  there- 
fore, it  is  blasphemous  to  suppose,  on  the  one  hand,  that  inspired  men 
should  write  on  purpose  to  mislead  ;  so,  on  the  other,  is  it  utterly  incon- 
ceivable that,  had  they  only  been  ordinary  writers,  they  should  construct 
a  figurative  language  out  of  terms  which  had  a  definite  and  established 
sense,  without  giving  any  intimation  at  all  that  they  employed  them 
otherwise  than  in  their  received  meaning,  or  telling  us  why  they  adopted 
them  at  all,  and  more  especially  when  they  knew  that  they  must  be  in- 
terpreted, both  by  Jews  and  Greeks,  in  a  sense  which,  if  the  Socinians 
are  right,  was  in  direct  opposition  to  that  which  they  intended  to  convey. 

This  will,  however,  appear  with  additional  evidence,  when  the  typi- 
cal, as  well  as  the  expiatory  character  of  the  legal  sacrifices  are  consi- 
dered. In  strict  argument,  the  latter  does  not  depend  upon  the  former, 
and  if  the  oblations  of  the  Mosaic  institute  had  not  been  intentionally 
adumbrative  of  the  one  oblation  of  Christ,  the  argument,  from  their  vica- 
rious and  expiatory  character,  would  still  have  been  valid.  For  if  the 
legal  sacrifices  were  offered  in  place  of  the  offender,  blood  for  blood,  life 
for  hfe,  and  if  the  death  of  Christ  is  represented  to  be,  in  as  true  a  sense, 
a  sacrifice  and  expiation,  then  is  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament 
writers,  as  to  the  expiatory  character  of  the  death  of  our  Lord,  expli- 
citly established. 

That  the  Levitical  sacrifices  were  also  types,  is  another  argument, 
and  accumulates  the  already  preponderating  evidence. 

A  type,  in  the  theological  sense,  is  defined  by  systematic  writers  to 
be  a  sign  or  example,  prepared  and  designed  by  God  to  prefigure  some 
future  thing.  It  is  required  that  it  should  represent  (though  the  degree 
of  clearness  may  be  very  different  in  different  instances)  this  future  ob- 
ject, either  by  something  which  it  has  in  common  with  it,  or  in  being  the 
symbol  of  some  property  which  it  possesses  ; — that  it  should  be  prepared 
and  designed  by  God  thus  to  represent  its  antitype,  which  circumstance 
distinguishes  it  from  a  simile,  and  from  hieroglyphic ; — that  it  should 
give  place  to  the  antitype  so  soon  as  the  latter  appears ;  and  that  the 
efficacy  of  the  antitype  should  exist  in  the  type  in  appearance  only,  or 
in  a  lower  degree.  {Vide  Outram  De  Sacrijiciis.)  These  may  be  con- 
sidered as  the  general  properties  of  a  type. 

Of  this  kind  are  the  views  given  us,  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament,  of  the  Levitical  dispensation,  and  of  many  events  and 
examples  of  the  Mosaic  history.     Thus  St.  Paul  calls  the  meats  and 

2 


160  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

drinks,  the  holy  days,  new  moons,  and  sabbaths  of  the  Jews,  including 
in  them  the  services  performed  in  the  celebration  of  these  festivals,  "  a 
shadow  of  things  to  come ;"  "  the  hody^^  of  which  shadow,  whose  form 
the  shadow  generally  and  faintly  exhibited,  "  is  Christ."  Again,  when 
speaking  of  the  things  which  happened  to  the  Israelites,  in  the  wilder- 
ness, he  calls  them  "  ensamples"  (ruo'oj)  types,  "  written  for  our  admo- 
nition, upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come."  In  Hebrews  x,  1, 
the  same  apostle,  when  he  discourses  expressly  on  the  "  sacrifices"  of 
the  tabernacle,  calls  them  "  the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,"  and 
places  them  in  contrast  with  "  the  very  image  of  the  things,"  that  is,  the 
"  good  things"  just  before  mentioned  ;  and,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  he 
tells  us  that  the  services  performed  in  the  tabernacle  prefigured  what 
was  afterward  to  be  transacted  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary.  These  in- 
stances are  sufficient  for  the  argument,  and,  in  examining  them,  Ave  may 
observe,  that  if  the  things  here  alluded  to  are  not  allowed  to  be  types, 
then  they  are  used  as  mere  illustrative  rhetorical  illustrations,  and  in 
their  original  institution  had  no  more  reference  to  the  facts  and  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  system  than  the  sacrificial  services  of  pagan  tem- 
ples, which  might,  in  some  particulars,  upon  this  hypothesis,  just  as  well 
have  served  the  apostle's  purpose.  But  if,  upon  examination,  this  notion 
of  their  being  used  merely  as  rhetorical  illustrations  be  contradicted  by 
the  passages  themselves,  then  the  true  typical  character  of  these  events 
and  ceremonies  may  be  considered  as  fairly  established. 

With  respect  to  the  declaration  of  St.  Paul,  that  the  punishments  in. 
flicted  upon  the  disobedient  and  unfaithful  Israelites  in  the  wilderness 
were  "  types  written  for  our  admonition,"  it  is  only  to  be  explained  by 
considering  the  history  of  that  people  as  designedly,  and,  by  appointment, 
typical.  These  things  happened  for  types  ;  and  that,  by  types,  the 
apostle  means  much  more  than  a  general  admonitory  correspondence 
between  disobedience  and  punishment,  v.hich  many  other  circumstances 
might  just  as  well  have  aflforded ;  he  adds,  that  "  they  were  written  for 
our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come,"  that  is, 
for  the  admonition  of  Christians  who  had  entered  into  the  obligations  of 
the  new  dispensation.  For  this  purpose  they  were  recorded ;  by  this 
act  of  God  they  were  made  types  in  the  highest  sense  ;  and  could  not 
become  types  in  the  sense  of  mere  figurative  illustration,  which  would 
have  been  contingent  upon  this  rhetorical  use  being  made  of  them  by 
some  subsequent  writer.  This  is  farther  confirmed  also  by  the  pre- 
ceding verses,  in  which  the  apostle  calls  the  manna  "  spiritual  meat," 
which  can  only  be  understood  of  it  as  being  a  type  of  the  bread  which 
came  doAvn  from  heaven,  even  Christ,  who,  in  allusion  to  the  same  fact, 
so  designates  himself.  The  "  rock,"  too,  is  called  the  spiritual  rock, 
and  that  rock,  adds  the  apostle,  "  was  Christ ;"  but  in  what  conceiv- 
able  meaning,  except  as  it  was  an  appointed  type  of  him  ? 


SECOM>.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  161 

This  is  St.  Paul's  general  description  of  the  typical  character  of  "  the 
Church  in  the  wilderness."  In  the  other  passages  quoted,  he  adduces, 
in  particular,  the  Levitical  services.  He  calls  the  ceremonial  of  the 
law  "  a  shadow,^''  (Cxia  ;)  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  he  opposes  this 
shadow  to  "  the  body ;"  in  that  to  the  Hebrews,  to  "  tlie  very  image  ;" 
by  which  he  obviously  means  the  reality  of  "  the  good  things"  adum- 
brated,  or  their  essential  form  or  substance.  Now  whether  we  take  the 
word  dxiOL  for  the  shadow  of  the  body  of  man  ;  or  for  a  faint  delinea- 
tion, or  sketch,  to  be  succeeded  by  a  finished  picture,  it  is  clear,  thaX 
whatever  the  law  was,  it  was  by  Divine  appointment ;  and  as  there  is 
a  relation  between  the  shadow  arid  the  body  which  produces  it,  and  the 
sketch  or  outline  and  the  finished  picture,  so  if,  by  Divine  appointment, 
the  law  was  this  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  which  is  what  the  apos- 
tle asserts,  then  there  was  an  intended  relation  of  one  to  the  other,  quite 
independent  of  the  figurative  and  rhetorical  use  which  might  be  made 
of  a  mere  accidental  comparison.  If  the  apostle  speaks  figuratively 
only,  then  the  law  is  to  be  supposed  to  have  no  appointed  relation  to 
the  Gospel,  as  a  shadow  or  sketch  of  good  things  to  come,  and  this  re- 
lation is  one  of  imagination  only  ;  if  the  relation  was  a  designed  and 
an  appointed  one,  then  the  resolution  of  the  apostle's  words  into  figura- 
tive allusion  cannot  be  maintained.  But,  farther,  the  apostle  grounds 
an  argument  upon  these  types ;  an  argument,  too,  of  the  most  serious 
kind ;  an  argument  for  renouncing  the  law  and  embracing  the  Gospel, 
upon  the  penalty  of  eternal  danger  to  the  soul :  no  absurdity  can,  there- 
fore, be  greater  than  to  suppose  him  to  argue  so  weighty  and  important 
a  question  upon  a  relation  of  one  thing  to  another  existing  only  in  the 
imagination,  and  not  appointed  by  God ;  and  if  the  relation  was  so  ap- 
pointed, it  is  of  that  instituted  and  adumbrative  kind  which  constitutes  a 
type  in  its  special  and  theological  sense. 

Of  this  appointment  and  designation  of  the  tabernacle  service  to  be  a 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  affords  several  direct  and  unequivocal  declarations.  So  verse 
seven  and  eight,  "  But  into  the  second  went  the  high  priest  alone,  once 
every  year,  not  without  blood,  which  he  offered  for  himself,  and  for  the 
errors  of  the  people ;  the  Holy  Ghost  signifying  this  (showing,  de. 
daring  by  this  type)  that  the  way  into  the  holiest  of  all  was  not  yet 
made  manifest."  Here  we  have  the  declaration  of  a  doctrine  by  type, 
which  is  surely  very  different  to  the  figurative  use  of  a  fact,  employed 
to  embellish  and  enforce  an  argument  by  a  subsequent  writer,  and  this  is 
also  referred  to  the  design  and  intention  of  the  "  Holy  Ghost"  himself, 
at  the  time  when  the  Levitical  ritual  was  prescribed,  and  this  typical 
declaration  was  to  continue  until  the  new  dispensation  should  be  intro- 
duced. In  verse  nine,  the  tabernacle  itself  is  called  a  figure  or  para- 
ble ;  "Which  was  a  figure  ('rrapa,/3oXr])  for  the  time  then  present."     It 

Vol.  II.  U 


162  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

was  a  parable  by  which  the  evangelical  and  spiritual  doctrines  were 
taught ;  it  was  an  appointed  parable,  because  limited  to  a  certain  time, 
^^for  the  time  then  present,'^  that  is,  until  the  bringing  in  of  the  things 
signified,  to  which  it  had  this  designed  relation.  Again,  verse  23,  "  the 
things  under  the  law"  are  called  '■'■patterns  (representations)  of  things 
in  the  heavens  ;"  and  in  verse  24,  the  holy  places  made  with  hands  are 
denominated  "  the  figures,"  {antitypes)  "  of  the  true."  Were  they  then 
representations  and  antitypes  only  in  St.  Paul's  imagination,  or  in  reality 
and  by  appointment  ?  Read  his  argument :  "  It  was  necessary,  that  the 
patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these  ;  but  the 
heavenly  things  themselves,  with  better  sacrifices  than  these."  On  the 
hypothesis  that  sacrificial  terms  and  allusions  are  employed  figuratively 
only  by  the  apostle,  what  kind  of  argument,  we  may  ask,  is  this  ?  On 
what  does  the  common  necessity  of  the  purification,  both  of  the  earthly 
and  the  heavenly  tabernacle,  by  sacrifices,  though  diflferent  in  their  de- 
gree of  value  and  efficacy,  rest  ?  Could  the  apostle  say  that  this  was 
necessary,  to  afford  him  a  figurative  embellishment  in  writing  hi&  epistle  ? 
The  necessity  is  clearly  grounded  upon  the  relation  instituted  by  the 
Author  of  the  Levitical  economy  himself;  the  heavenly  places  were  not 
to  be  entered  by  sinners,  but  through  the  blood  of  "  better  sacrifices  ;" 
and  to  teach  this  doctrine  early  to  mankind,  it  was  "  necessary^"*  to  purify 
the  earthly  tabernacle,  and  thus  give  the  people  access  to  it  only  by  the 
blood  of  the  inferior  sacrifices,  that  both  they  and  the  tabernacle  might 
be  the  types  of  evangelical  and  heavenly  things,  and  that  they  might  be 
taught  the  only  means  of  obtaining  access  to  the  tabernacle  in  heaven. 
There  was,  therefore,  in  setting  up  these  '-'■  patterns^''  an  intentioned 
adumbration  of  these  future  things,  and  hence  the  word  used  is  U'ro(5s<7fAa, 
the  import  of  which  is  shovv-n  in  chapter  viii,  5,  where  it  is  associated 
with  the  term,  the  shadow  of  heavenly  things, — "  who  serve  unto  the 
example  and  shadow  of  heavenly  things,"  or  "  these"  priests  "  perform 
the  service  with  a  representation  and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things." 

The  sacrificial  ceremonies,  then,  of  the  Levitical  institute,  are  clearly 
established  to  be  typical,  and  have  all  the  characters  which  constitute 
a  type  in  the  received  theological  sense.  They  are  represented  by  St. 
Paul,  in  the  passages  which  have  been  under  consideration,  as  adum- 
brative ;  as  designed  and  appointed  to  be  so  by  God  ;  as  having  respect 
to  things  future,  to  Christ  and  to  his  sacerdotal  ministry ;  as  being  infe- 
i^ior  in  efficacy  to  the  antitypes  which  correspond  to  them,  the  "  better 
sacrifices,"  of  which  he  speaks ;  and  they  were  all  displaced  by  the 
antitype,  the  Levitical  ceremony  being  repealed  by  the  death  and  ascen- 
sion of  our  Lord. 

Since,  then,  both  the  expiatory  and  the  typical  characters  of  the  Jew- 
ish sacrifices  were  so  clearly  held  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
there  can  be  no  rational  doubt  as  to  the  sense  in  which  thev  apply  sac- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  163 

rificial  terms  and  Mlusions,  to  describe  thfe  nature  and  effect  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  As  the  offering  of  the  animal  sacrifice  took  away  sin,  that 
is,  obtained  remission  for  offences  against  the  law,  we  can  be  at  no  loss 
to  know  what  the  Baptist  means,  when,  pointing  to  Christ,  he  exclaims, 
"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world." 
As  there  was  a  transfer  of  suffering  and  death,  from  the  offender  to  the 
legally  clean  and  sound  victim,  so  Christ  died,  "  the^'i^^  for  the  unjust ;" 
as  the  animal  sacrifice  was  expiating,  so  Christ  is  our  {Kctd^ag,  propitia- 
tion, or  expiation  ;  as  by  the  Levitical  oblations  men  were  reconciled 
to  God,  so  "  we,  when  enemies,  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of 
his  Son ;"  a:s  under  the  law,  "  without  shedding  of  blood  there  was  no 
remission,"  so,  as  to  Christ,  we  are  "justified  by  his  blood,"  and  have 
"redemption  through  his  blood,  the  remission  of  sins  ;"  as  by  the  blood 
of  the  appointed  sSa.crifices,  the  holy  places,  made  with  hands,  were  made 
accessible  to  the  Jewish  worshippers,  that  blood,  being  carried  into 
them,  and  sprinkled  by  the  high  priest,  so  "  Christ  entered  once,  with 
his  own  blood  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for 
us,"  and  has  thus  opened  for  us  a  "  new  and  living  way"  into  the  celes- 
tial sanctuary ;  as  the  blood  of  the  Mosaic  oblations  was  the  blood  of 
the  Old  Testament,  so,  he  himself  says,  "  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New 
Testament,  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;"  as  it  was  a  part  of  the  sac- 
rificial solemnity,  in  some  instances,  to  feast  upon  the  victim ;  so,  with 
direct  reference  to  this,  our  Lord  also  declares  that  he  would  give  his 
own  '^  flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world  ;"  and  that  "  whoso  eateth  my  flesh 
and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal  life  ;  for  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed, 
and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed  ;"  that  is,  it  is  in  truth  and  reality  what 
the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Jewish  victims  were  in  type. 

The  instances  of  this  use  of  sacrificial  terms  are,  indeed,  ahnost  in- 
numerable, and  enough,  I  trust,  has  been  said  to  show  that  they  could 
not  be  employed  in  a  merely  figurative  sense  ;  nevertheless  there  are 
two  or  three  passages  in  which  they  occur  as  the  basis  of  an  argument 
which  depends  upon  taking  them  in  the  received  sense,  with  a  brief  con- 
sideration of  which  we  may  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject. 

When  St.  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  says,  "  for  he  hath  made 
him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,"  or  "  him  who  knew  no  sin,  he 
hath  made  to  be  sin  for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  him,"  he  concludes  a  discourse  upon  our  reconciliation  to 
God,  and  lays  this  down  as  the  general  principle  upon  which  that  re- 
conciliation, of  which  he  has  been  speaking,  is  to  be  explained  and  en- 
forced. Here,  then,  the  question  is,  in  what  sense  Christ  was  made 
SIN  for  us.  Not,  certainly,  as  to  the  guilt  of  it ;  for  it  is  expressly  said, 
that  "  he  knew  no  sin ;"  but  as  to  the  expiation  of  it,  by  his  personal 
sufferings,  by  which  he  delivers  the  guilty  from  punishment.  For  the 
phrase  is  manifestly  taken  from  the  sin  offerings  of  the  Old  Testament, 

2 


164  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

which  are  there  sometimes  called  "  sins"  as  being  offerings  for  sin,  and 
because  the  animals  sacrificed  represented  the  sinners  themselves. 
Thus,  Lev.  iv,  21,  the  heifer  to  be  offered,  is  called,  in  our  translation, 
more  agreeably  to  our  idiom,  "  a  sin  offering  for  the  congregation ;" 
but,  in  the  LXX,  it  is  denominated  "  the  sin  of  the  congregation." 
So,  also,  in  verse  29,  as  to  the  red  heifer  which  was  to  be  offered  for 
the  sin  of  private  persons,  the  person  offending  was  "  to  lay  his  hand 
upon  the  head  of  the  sin  offering,'^  as  we  rightly  interpret  it ;  but,  in 
the  LXX,  "  upon  the  head  of  his  sin,"  agreeably  to  the  Hebrew  word, 
which  signifies  indifferently  either  sin  or  the  offering  for  it.  Thus, 
again,  in  Lev.  vi,  25,  "  This  is  the  law  of  the  sin  offering,"  in  the  Greek, 
"  This  is  the  law  of  sin ;"  which  also  has,  "  they  shall  slay  the  sins 
before  the  Lord,"  for  the  sin  offerings.  The  Greek  of  the  Apostle 
Paul  is  thus  easily  explained  by  that  of  the  LXX,  and  affords  a  natural 
exposition  of  the  passage — "  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  God  hath  made 
sin  for  us,"  as  the  sin  offerings  of  the  law  were  made  sins  for  offenders, 
the  death  of  innocent  creatures  exempting  from  death  those  who  were 
really  criminal.  {Vide  Chapman's  Eusebius,  chap,  iv.)  This  allusion  to 
the  Levitical  sin  offerings  is  also  established  by  the  connection  of  Christ's 
sin  offering  with  our  reconciUation.  Such  was  the  effect  of  the  sin 
offerings  among  the  Jews,  and  such,  St.  Paul  tells  us,  is  the  effect  of 
Christ  being  made  a  sin  offering  for  us  ;  a  sufficient  proof  that  he  does 
not  use  the  term  figuratively,  nor  speak  of  the  indirect  but  of  the  direct 
effect  of  the  death  of  Christ  in  reconciling  us  to  God. 

Again,  in  Ephes.  v,  2,  "  Christ  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us,  an 
offering  and  sacrifice  to  God,  for  a  sweet-smelling  savour."  Here,  also, 
he  uses  the  very  terms  applied  to  the  Jewish  sacrifices.  How,  then, 
could  a  Jew,  or  even  a  Gentile,  understand  him?  Would  an  inspired  man 
use  sacrificial  language  without  a  sacrificial  sense,  and  merely  amuse  his 
readers  with  the  sound  of  words  v/ithout  meaning,  or  employ  them  with- 
out notice  being  given,  in  a  meaning  which  the  readers  were  not  accus- 
tomed to  affix  to  them?  The  argument  forbids  this,  as  well  as  the  reason 
and  honesty  of  the  case.  His  object  was  to  impress  the  Ephesians  with 
the  deepest  sense  of  the  love  of  Christ ;  and  he  says,  "  Christ  loved  us  ; 
and  gave  up  himself  for  us;"  and  then  explains  the  mode  in  which 
he  thus  gave  himself  up  for  us,  that  is,  in  our  room  and  stead,  "  an 
OFFERING  and  SACRIFICE  to  God,  for  a  sweet-smelling  savour ;"  by  which 
his  readers  could  only  understand,  that  Christ  gave  himself  up  a  sacri- 
fice  for  them,  as  other  sacrifices  had  been  given  up  for  them,  "  in  the  way 
of  expiation,  to  obtain  for  them  the  mercy  and  favour  of  God."  The 
cavil  of  Crellius  and  his  followers  on  this  passage  is  easily  answered. 
He  says,  that  the  phrase  "  a  sweet-smelling  savour,"  is  scarcely  ever 
used  of  sin  offerings  or  expiatory  sacrifices  ;  but  of  burnt  offerings,  and 
peace  offerings,  by  which  expiation  was  not  made.     But  here  are  two 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  165 

mistakes.  The  first  lies  in  assuming  that  burnt  offerings  were  not  expia- 
tory,  whereas  they  are  said  "  to  make  atonement,"  and  were  so  con- 
sidered by  the  Jews,  though  sometimes  also  they  were  eucharistic.  The 
second  mistake  is,  that  the  phrase,  "  a  sweet-smelhng  savour,"  is  by 
some  pecuHar  fitness  apphed  to  one  class  of  offerings  alone.  It  is  a 
gross  conception,  that  it  relates  principally  to  the  odour  of  sacrifices 
burned  with  fire ;  whereas  it  signifies  the  acceptahleness  of  sacrificOvS 
to  God ;  and  is  so  explained  in  Phil,  iv,  18,  where  the  apostle  calls  the 
bounty  of  the  Philippians,  "  an  odour  o^ sweet  smell,"  and  adds,  exegeti- 
cally,  "  a  sacrifice  acceptable  and  well  pleasing  to  God."  The  phrase  is, 
probably,  taken  from  the  incensing  which  accompanied  the  sacrificial 
services. 

To  these  instances  must  be  added  the  whole  argument  of  St.  Paul,  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  To  what  purpose  does  he  prove  that 
Christ  had  a  superior  priesthood  to  Aaron,  if  Christ  were  only  metaphori- 
cally  a  priest  ?  What  end  is  answered  by  proving  that  his  offering  of 
himself  had  greater  efficacy  than  the  oblations  of  the  tabernacle,  in  tak- 
ing away  sin,  if  sin  was  not  taken  away  in  the  same  sense,  that  is,  by 
expiation  ?  Why  does  he  lay  so  mighty  a  stress  upon  the  death  of  our 
Lord,  as  being  "  a  better  sacrifice,"  if,  according  to  the  received  sense, 
it  was  no  sacrifice  at  all  ?  His  argument,  it  is  manifest,  would  go  for 
nothing,  and  be  no  better  than  an  unworthy  trifling  with  his  readers,  and 
especially  with  the  Hebrews  to  whom  he  writes  the  epistle,  beneath  not 
only  an  inspired  but  an  ordinary  w-riter.  Fully  to  unfold  the  argument, 
we  might  travel  through  the  greater  part  of  the  epistle  ;  but  one  or  two 
passages  may  suffice.  In  chap,  vii,  27,  speaking  of  Christ  as  our  high 
priest,  he  says,  "  Who  needeth  not  daily  as  those  high  priests,  to  offer  up 
sacrifices,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's,  for  this  (latter) 
he  did  once  when  he  offered  up  himself."  The  circumstance  of  his  offering 
sacrifice  not  daily,  but  "  once  for  all,"  marks  the  superior  value  and 
efficacy  of  his  sacrifice  ;  his  offering  up  this  sacrifice  "  of  himself"  for 
the  sins  of  the  people,  as  the  Jewish  high  priest  offered  his  animal 
sacrifices  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  marks  the  similarity  of  the  act ;  in 
both  cases  atonement  was  made,  but  with  different  degrees  of  efficacy  ; 
but  unless  atonement  for  sin  was  in  reality  made  by  his  thus  offering  up 
"  himself,"  the  virtue  and  efficacy  of  Christ's  sacrifice  would  be  inferior 
to  that  of  the  Aaronical  priesthood,  contrary  to  the  declared  design  and 
argument  of  the  epistle.  Let  us,  also,  refer  to  chap,  ix,  13,  14,  "  For 
if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the 
unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,"  so  as  to  fit  the  ofiender 
for  joining  in  the  serA'ice  of  the  tabernacle,  "  how  much  more  shall  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without 
spot  to  God,  purge  your  consciences  from  dead  works,  to  serve  the  living 
God."     The  comparison  here  lies  in  this,  that  the  Levitical  sacrifices 


166  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

expiated  legal  punishments ;  but  did  not  in  themselves  acquit  the  people 
absolutely  in  respect  to  God,  as  the  Governor  and  Judge  of  mankind  ; 
but  that  the  blood  of  Christ  extends  its  virtue  to  the  conscience,  and 
eases  it  of  all  guilty  terror  of  the  wrath  to  come  on  account  of  "  dead 
works,"  or  works  which  deserve  death  under  the  universal,  moral  law. 
The  ground  of  this  comparison,  however,  Hes  in  the  real  efficacy  of  each 
of  these  expiations.  Each  "  purifies,"  each  delivers  from  guilt,  but  the 
latter  only  as  "  pertaining  to  the  conscience,"  and  the  mode  in  each 
case  is  by  expiation.  But  to  interpret  the  purging  of  the  conscience,  as 
the  Socinians,  of  mere  dissuasion  from  dead  works  to  come,  or  as 
descriptive  of  the  power  of  Christ  to  acquit  men,  upon  their  repent- 
ance, declaratively  destroys  all  just  similitude  between  the  blood  of 
Christ  and  that  of  the  animal  sacrifices,  and  the  argument  amounts  to 
nothing. 

We  conclude  with  a  passage,  to  which  we  have  before  adverted, 
which  institutes  a  comparison  between  the  Levitical  purification  of  the 
holy  places  made  with  hands,  and  the  purification  of  the  heavenly  places 
by  the  blood  of  Christ.  "  And  almost  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged  with 
blood,  and  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission.  It  was  therefore  ne- 
cessary that  the  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with 
these ;  but  the  heavenly  things  themselves  with  better  sacrifices  than 
these.  For  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands, 
which  are  figures  of  the  true,  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in 
the  presence  of  God  for  us."  To  enter  into  the  meaning  of  this  passage, 
we  are  to  consider  that  God  dwelt  personally  among  the  Israelites  ;  that 
the  sanctuary  and  tabernacle  are  represented  as  polluted  by  their  sins, 
and  even  corporal  impurities,  the  penalty  of  which  was  death,  unless 
atoned  for,  or  expiated  according  to  law,  and  that  all  unclean  persons 
were  debarred  access  to  the  tabernacle  and  the  service  of  God,  until 
expiation  was  made,  and  purification  thereby  efiiected.  It  was  under 
these  views  that  the  sin  ofl?erings  were  made  on  the  day  of  expiation,  to 
which  the  apostle  alludes  in  the  above  passage.  Then  the  high  priest 
entered  into  the  holy  of  hoUes,  with  the  blood  of  sacrifices,  to  make 
atonement  both  for  himself  and  the  whole  people.  He  first  offered  for 
himself  and  for  his  house  a  bullock,  and  sprinkled  the  blood  of  it  upon  and 
before  the  mercy  seat  within  the  veil.  Afterward  he  killed  a  goat  for  a 
sin  oflTering  for  the  people  and  sprinkled  the  blood  in  like  manner. 
This  was  called  atoning  for,  or  hallowing  and  reconciling  the  holy  place, 
and  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  "  because  of  the  uncleanness 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  because  of  their  transgressions  in  all 
their  sins."  The  effect  of  all  this  was  the  remission  of  sins,  which  is 
represented  by  the  scape  goat,  who  carried  away  the  sins  which  had 
been  confessed  over  him,  with  imposition  of  hands ;  and  the  purification 
of  the  priests  and  people,  so  that  their  holy  places  were  made  acces- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  1G7 

sible  to  them,  and  they  were  alio  wed,  without  fear  of  the  death  which  had 
been  threatened,  to  "  draw  near"  to  God. 

We  have  already  shown  that  here  the  holy  places  made  with  hands, 
and  the  "  true  holy  places,"  of  which  they  were  the  figures,  were 
purified  and  opened,  each  in  the  same  way,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  the  victims — the  patterns  or  emblems  of  things  in  the  heavens, 
by  the  blood  of  animals,  the  heavenly  places  themselves  by  "  better 
sacrifices,"  and  that  the  argument  of  the  apostle  forbids  us  to  sup- 
pose that  he  is  speaking  figuratively.  Let  us,  then,  merely  mark  the 
correspondence  of  the  type  and  antitype  in  this  case,  as  exhibited  by 
the  apostle.  He  compares  the  legal  sacrifices  and  that  of  Christ  in  the 
similar  purification  of  the  respective  A^ia  or  sanctuaries  to  which  each 
had  relation.  The  Jewish  sanctuary  on  earth  was  purified,  that  is, 
opened  and  made  accessible  by  the  one  ;  the  celestial  sanctuary,  the 
true  and  everlasting  seat  of  God's  presence,  by  the  other.  Accordingly, 
in  other  passages,  he  pursues  the  parallel  still  farther,  representing 
Christ  as  procuring  for  men,  by  his  death,  a  happy  admission  into  hea- 
ven, as  the  sin  offerings  of  the  law  obtained  for  the  Jews  a  safe  entrance 
into  the  tabernacle  on  earth,  "  Having,  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to 
enter  into  the  hohest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new  and  Uving  way, 
which  he  hath  consecrated  for  us  through  the  veil,  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh  ; 
and  having  a  high  priest  over  the  house  of  God,  let  us  draw  near  with 
a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from 
an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  Thus,  also, 
he  tells  us  that  "  we  are  sanctified  by  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Christ 
Jesus,"  and  that  as  the  bodies  of  those  animals  whose  blood  was  carried 
into  the  holy  of  hoUes  by  the  high  priest,  to  make  an  atonement  for  sin, 
were  burned  "  without  the  camp,"  so  also  Jesus  suffered  without  the 
gate,  "  that  he  might  sanctify  the  people  with  his  own  blood." 

The  notion  that  sacrificial  terms  are  apphed  to  the  death  of  Christ 
by  rhetorical  figure  is,  then,  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  foregoing  con- 
siderations. But  it  has  been  argued,  that  as  there  is,  in  many  respects, 
a  want  of  literal  conformity  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  sacra- 
fices  of  the  law,  a  considerable  license  of  figurative  interpretation  must 
be  allowed.  Great  confusion  of  ideas  on  this  subject  has  resulted  from 
not  observing  a  very  obvious  distinction  which  exists  between  figurative 
and  analogical  language.  It  by  no  means  follows,  that  when  language 
cannot  be  interpreted  literally  it  must  be  taken  figuratively,  or  by  way  of 
rhetorical  allusion.  This  distinction  is  well  made  by  a  late  writer. 
{Yeysies^  Bampton  Lectures.) 

"  Figurative  language,"  he  observes,  "  does  not  arise  from  the  real 
nature  of  the  thing  to  which  it  is  transferred,  but  only  from  the  imagina- 
tion of  him  who  transfers  it.  So,  a  man  of  courage  is  figuratively  called 
a  lion,  not  because  the  real  nature  of  a  lion  belongs  to  him,  but  because 

2 


168  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

one  quality  which  characterizes  this  animal  belongs  to  him  in  an  emi- 
nent degree,  and  the  imagination  conceives  of  them  as  partakers  of  a 
common  nature,  and  applies  to  them  one  common  name.  But  there  is 
a  species  of  language,  usually  called  analogical,  which,  though  not 
strictly  proper,  is  far  from  being  merely  figurative,  the  terms  being 
transferred  from  one  thing  to  another,  not  because  the  things  are  similar^ 
but  because  they  are  in  similar  relations.  The  term  thus  transferred, 
is  as  truly  significant  of  the  real  nature  of  the  thing,  in  the  relation  in 
which  it  stands,  as  it  could  be,  were  it  the  primitive  and  proper  word. 
Thus  the  term  foot  properly  signifies  the  lower  extremity  of  an  ani- 
mal, or  that  on  which  it  stands ;  but,  because  the  lower  extremity  or 
base  of  a  mountain  is  to  the  mountain  what  the  foot  is  to  the  animal,  it 
is  therefore  called  the  same  name,  and  the  term  thus  applied  is  signifi- 
cant of  something  real,  something  which,  if  not  a,  foot  in  strict  propriety 
of  speech,  is,  nevertheless  truly  so,  considered  with  respect  to  the  circum- 
stance upon  which  the  analogy  is  founded.  But  this  mode  of  expression 
is  more  common  with  respect  to  our  mental  and  intellectual  faculties  and 
operations,  which  we  are  wont  to  denominate  by  words  borrowed  from 
similar  functions  of  the  bodily  organs  and  corresponding  attributes  of 
material  things.  Thus  to  see,  is  properly  to  acquire  impressions  of  sensi- 
ble objects  by  the  organs  of  sight ;  but  to  the  mind  is  also  attributed  an 
eyCf  with  which  we  are  analogically  said  to  see  objects  intellectual.  In 
like  manner,  great  and  little,  equal  and  unequal,  smooth  and  rough, 
sweet  and  sour,  are  properly  attributes  of  material  substances ;  but  they 
are  analogically  ascribed  to  such  as  are  immaterial ;  for  without  intend- 
ing a  figure,  we  speak  of  a  great  mind,  and  a  little  mind ;  and  the  natural 
temper  of  one  man  is  said  to  be  equal,  smooth,  and  sweet,  while  that  of 
another  is  called  unequal,  rough,  and  sour.  And  if  we  thus  express  such 
intellectual  things  as  fall  more  immediately  under  our  observation,  we 
cannot  wonder  that  things  spiritual  and  Divine,  which  are  more  removed 
from  our  direct  inspection,  should  be  exhibited  to  our  apprehension  in  the 
same  manner.  The  conceptions  which  we  thus  form,  may  be  imperfect 
and  inadequate  ;  but  they  are,  nevertheless,  just  and  true,  consequently 
the  language  in  which  they  are  expressed,  although  borrowed,  is  not 
merely  figurative,  but  is  significant  of  something  real  in  the  things 
concerned." 

To  apply  this  to  the  case  before  us,  the  blood  or  fife  of  Christ  is 
called  our  ransom  and  the  price  of  our  redemption.  Now,  admitting 
that  these  expressions  are  not  to  be  understood  Uterally,  does  it  follow 
that  they  contain  mere  figure  and  allusion  1  By  no  means.  They  con- 
tain  truth  and  reality.  Christ  came  to  redeem  us  from  the  power  of 
sin  and  Satan,  by  paying  for  our  deliverance  no  less  a  price  than  his 
own  blood.  "  In  him  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood."  "  The 
Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many ;"  and  we  are 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  169 

taught,  by  this  representation,  that  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  deHverance 
of  sinful  man,  corresponds  to  a  price  or  ransom  in  the  deliverance  of  a 
captive,  and  consequently  is  a  price  or  ransom,  if  not  literally,  at  least 
really  and  truly » 

When  Christ  is  called  "our  passover,"  the  same  analogical  use  of 
terms  is  manifest,  and  in  several  other  passages  which  will  be  famihar 
to  the  reader  ;  but  *vve  hesitate  Xo  apply  the  same  rule  of  interpretation 
throughout,  and  to  say  with  the  author  just  quoted,  and  Archbishop 
Magee,  who  refers,  to  him  on  this  point  with  approbation,  that  Christ  is 
called  a  "  sin  offering"  and  a  "  sacrifice"  analogically.  These  terms, 
on  the  contrary,  are  used  properly ,  and  must  be  understood  lilerally. — 
For  what  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice  under  the  law,  but  the  offering  of 
the  life  of  an  innocent  creature  in  the  place  of  the  guilty,  and  that,  in 
order  to  obtain  his  exemption  from  death  ?  The  death  of  Christ  is  as 
literally  an  offering  of  himself  "  the  just  for  the  unjust,"  to  exempt  the 
latter  from  death.  The  legal  sin  offerings  cleansed  the  body  and  quali- 
fied for  the  ceremonial  worship  prescribed  by  the  law ;  and  the  blood 
of  Christ  as  truly  purifies  the  conscience  and  consecrates  to  the  spirit- 
ual service  required  by  the  Gospel.  The  circumstances  differ,  but  the 
things  themselves  are  not  so  much  analogical  as  identical  in  their 
nature,  though  differing  in  circumstances,  that  is,  so  far  as  the  legal 
sacrifices  had  any  efficacy,  per  se ;  but,  in  another  and  a  higher  view,  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  was  the  only  true  sacrifice,  and  the  Levitical  ones 
were  but  the  appointed  types  of  that.  If,  therefore,  in  this  argument,  we 
may  refer  to  the  Mosaic  sacrifices,  to  fix  the  sense  in  which  the  New 
Testament  uses  the  sacrificial  terms  in  which  it  speaks  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  against  an  objector ;  yet,  in  fact,  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  are  to 
be  interpreted  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  not  the  latter  by  them. — 
They  are  rather  analogical  with  it,  than  it  with  them.  There  was  a 
previous  ordination  of  pardon  through  the  appointed  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb 
of  God,  "  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  to  which  they  all,  in 
different  degrees,  referred,  and  of  which  they  were  but  the  visible  and 
sensible  monitors  "  for  the  time  present." 

As  to  the  objection,  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices  had  no  reference  to  the 
expiation  of  moral  transgression,  we  observe, 

1.  That  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  sacrifice  as  a  part  of 
the  theo-political  law  of  the  Jews,  and  sacrifice  as  a  consuetudinary  rite, 
practised  by  their  fathers,  and  by  them  also  previous  to  the  giving  of 
the  law  from  Mount  Sinai,  and  taken  up  into  the  Mosaic  institute.  This 
was  continued  partly  on  its  original  ground,  and  partly,  and  with  addi- 
tions, as  a  branch  of  the  polity  under  which  the  Jews  were  placed. 
With  this  rite  they  were  familiar  before  the  law,  and  even  before  the 
exodus  from  Egypt.  "  Let  us  go,"  says  Moses  to  Pharaoh,  "  we  pray 
thee,  three  days'  journey  into  the  desert,  and  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  our 

2 


170  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  t  fPART 

God,  lest  he  fall  upon  us  with  pestilence  or  with  the  sword."  Here 
sacrifice  is  spoken  of,  and  that  with  reference  to  expiation,  or  the  avert- 
ing of  the  Divine  displeasure.  There  is  in  this,  too,  an  acknowledg- 
ment  of  offences,  as  the  reason  of  sacrificing ;  but  these  offences  could 
not  be  against  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  an  institute  which  did  not 
then  exist,  and  must,  therefore,  have  been  moral  offences.  We  may- 
add  to  this,  that  in  the  books  of  Leviticus  and  Exodus,  Moses  speaks 
of  sacrifices  as  a  previous  practice,  and,  in  some  cases,  so  far  from  pre- 
scribing the  act,  does  no  more  than  regulate  the  mode.  "  If  his  offer- 
ing  be  a  burnt  sacrifice  of  the  herd,  let  him  offer  a  male."  Had  their 
sacrifices,  therefore,  reference  only  to  cases  of  ceremonial  offence,  then 
it  would  follow  that  they  had  been  deprived  of  the  worship  of  their 
ancestors,  which  respected  the  obtaining  of  the  Divine  favour  in  the 
forgiveness  of  moral  offences,  and  that  they  obtained,  as  a  substitute,  a 
kind  of  worship  which  respected  only  ceremonial  cleansings,  and  a 
ceremonial  reconciliation.  They  had  this,  manifestly,  as  the  type  of 
something  higher  ;  and  they  had  also  the  patriarchal  rites  with  renewed 
sanctions  and  under  new  regulations  ;  and  thus  there  was  a  real  advance 
in  the  spirituality  of  their  worship,  while  it  became,  at  the  same  time, 
more  ceremonial  and  exact. 

2.  That  the  offerings  which  were  formerly  prescribed  under  the  law 
had  reference  to  moral  transgressions,  as  well  as  to  external  aberrations 
from  the  purity  and  exactness  of  the  Levitical  ritual. 

"  Atonement"  is  said  to  be  made  "  for  sins  committed  against  any 
of  the  commandments  of  the  Lord."  It  appears  also,  that  sins  of 
"ignorance"  included  all  sins  which  were  not  ranked  in  the  class 
of  "  presumptuous  sins,"  or  those  to  which  death  was  inevitably  an- 
nexed by  the  civil  law,  and,  therefore,  must  have  included  many  cases 
of  moral  transgression.  For  some  specific  instances  of  this  kind, 
sin  offerings  were  enjoined,  such  as  lying,  theft,  fraud,  extortion,  and 
perjury.  (3) 

3.  That  if  all  the  sin  offerings  of  the  Levitical  institute  had  respected 
legal  atonement  and  ceremonial  purification,  nothing  could  have  been 
collected  from  that  circumstance  to  invalidate  the  true  sacrifice  of 
Christ.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  a  type  to  be  inferior  in  efficacy  to  the 
antitype ;  and  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  argues,  from  the  invalidity  of 
Levitical  sacrifices  to  take  away  guilt  from  the  conscience,  the  superior 
efficacy  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  It  follows,  then,  that  as  truly  as 
they  were  legal  atonements,  so  truly  was  Christ's  death  a  moral  atone- 
ment ;  as  truly  as  they  purified  the  flesh,  so  truly  did  his  sacrifice 
purify  the  conscience. 

(3)  Vide  Outram  De  Sac. ;  Hallet's  Notes  and  Discourses ;  Hammond  and  Ro- 
senmuller  in  Heb.  ix ;  Richie's  Pec.  Doctrine. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  171 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

Redemption — Primitive  Sacrifices. 

To  the  rite  of  sacrifice  before  the  law,  practised  in  the  patriarchal 
ages,  up  to  the  first  family,  it  may  be  proper  to  give  some  considera- 
tion.  both  for  the  farther  elucidation  of  some  of  the  topics  above  stated, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  harmony  of  those  dispensations  of 
religion  which  were  made  to  fallen  man  in  different  ages  of  the  world. 
That  the  ante-Mosaic  sacrifices  were  expiatory,  is  the  first  point  which 
it  is  necessary  to  establish.  It  is  not,  indeed,  at  all  essential  to  the 
argument,  to  ascend  higher  than  the  sacrifices  of  the  la\y,  which  we  have 
already  proved  to  be  of  that  character,  and  by  which  the  expiatory  effi- 
cacy of  the  death  of  Christ  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament. — 
This,  however,  was  also  the  character  of  the  more  ancient  rites  of  the 
patriarchal  Church ;  and  thus  we  see  the  same  principles  of  moral 
government,  which  distinguish  the  Christian  and  Mosaic  dispensations, 
carried  still  higher  as  to  antiquity,  even  to  the  family  of  the  first 
man,  the  first  transgressor ;  "  without  shedding  of  blood  there  was  no 
remission." 

The  proofs  that  sacrifices  of  atonement  made  a  part  of  the  religious 
system  of  the  patriarchs  who  lived  before  the  law,  are  first  the  distribu- 
tion of  beasts  into  clewi  and  unclean^  which  we  find  prior  to  the  flood  of 
Noah.  This  is  a  singular  distinction,  and  one  which  could  not  then  have 
reference  to  food,  since  animal  food  was  not  allowed  to  man  prior  to  the 
deluge  ;  and  as  we  know  of  no  other  ground  for  the  distinction,  except 
that  of  sacrifice,  it  must,  therefore,  have  had  reference  to  the  selection 
of  victims  to  be  solemnly  offered  to  God,  as  a  part  of  worship,  and  as 
the  means  of  drawing  near  to  him  by  expiatory  rites  for  the  forgiveness 
of  sins.  Some,  it  is  true,  have  regarded  this  distinction  of  clean  and 
unclean  beasts  as  used  by  Moses  by  way  of  prolepsis,  or  anticipation,  a 
notion  which,  if  it  could  not  be  refuted  by  the  context,  would  be  per- 
fectly arbitrary.  But  not  only  are  the  beasts,  which  Noah  was  to 
receive  into  the  ark,  spoken  of  as  clean  and  unclean  ;  but  in  the  com- 
mand to  take  them  into  the  ark,  a  difference  is  made  in  the  number  to 
be  preserved,  the  former  being  to  be  received  by  sevens,  and  the  latter 
by  two  of  a  kind.  This  shows  that  this  distinction  among  beasts  had 
been  established  in  the  time  of  Noah,  and  thus  the  assumption  of  a  pro- 
lepsis is  refuted.  In  the  law  of  Moses  a  similar  distinction  is  made ; 
but  the  only  reasons  given  for  it  are  two :  in  this  manner,  those  victims 
which  God  would  allow  to  be  used  for  piacular  purposes,  were  marked 
out ;  and  by  this  distinction  those  animals  were  designated  which  were 
permitted  for  food.     The  former  only  can,  therefore,  be  considered  as 


172  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  JPART 

the  ground  of  this  distinction  among  the  antediluvians ;  for  the  critical 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  show  that  animals  were  allowed  to 
man  for  food,  previous  to  the  flood,  have  wholly  failed. 

A  second  argument  is  furnished  by  the  prohibition  of  blood  for  food, 
after  animals  had  been  granted  to  man  for  his  sustenance  along  with  the 
"  herb  of  the  field."  This  prohibition  is  repeated  by  Moses  to  the 
Israelites,  with  this  explanation,  "I  have  given  it  upon  the  altar,  to 
make  an  atonement  for  your  souls."  From  this  "  additional  reason," 
as  it  has  been  called,  it  has  been  argued,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  aton- 
ing power  of  blood  was  new,  and  was  then,  for  the  first  time,  announced 
by  Moses,  or  the  same  reason  for  the  prohibition  would  have  been 
given  to  Noah.  To  this  we  may  reply,  1.  That  unless  the  same  reason 
be  supposed  as  the  ground  of  the  prohibition  of  blood  to  Noah,  as  that 
given  by  Moses  to  the  Jews,  no  reason  at  all  can  be  conceived  for  this 
restraint  being  put  upon  the  appetite  of  mankind  from  Noah  to  Moses ; 
and  yet  we  have  a  prohibition  of  a  most  solemn  kind,  which  in  itself 
could  have  no  reason  enjoined,  without  any  external  reason  being  either 
given  or  conceivable.  2.  That  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  that  the 
declaration  of  Moses  to  the  Jews,  that  God  had  "  given  them  the  blood 
for  an  atonement,"  is  an  additional  reason  for  the  interdict,  not  to  be 
found  in  the  original  prohibition  to  Noah.  The  whole  passage  in  Lev. 
xvii,  is,  "  And  thou  shalt  say  to  them.  Whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the 
house  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn  among  you,  that  eateth 
any  manner  of  blood,  I  will  even  set  my  face  against  that  soul,  that  eat- 
eth blood,  and  I  will  cut  him  off  from  among  his  people,  for  the  life 
of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood,  and  I  have  given  it  upon  the  altar,  to  make 
atonement  for  your  souls ;  for  it  is  the  blood  (or  life)  that  maketh 
atonement  for  the  soul."  The  great  reason,  then,  of  the  prohibition  of 
blood  is,  that  it  is  the  life  ;  and  what  follows  respecting  atonement,  is 
exegetical  of  this  reason ;  the  life  is  in  the  blood,  and  the  blood  or  life  is 
given  as  an  atonement.  Now,  by  turning  to  the  original  prohibition  in 
Genesis,  we  find  that  precisely  the  same  reason  is  given.  "  But  the 
flesh  with  the  blood,  which  is  the  life  thereof,  shall  ye  not  eat."  The 
reason,  then,  being  the  same,  the  question  is,  whether  the  exegesis 
added  by  Moses,  must  not  necessarily  be  understood  in  the  general  rea. 
son  given  for  the  restraint  to  Noah.  Blood  is  prohibited  for  this  reason, 
that  it  is  the  life  ;  and  Moses  adds,  that  it  is  "  the  blood,"  or  life  "  which 
makes  atonement."  Let  any  one  attempt  to  discover  any  reason  for 
the  prohibition  of  blood  to  Noah,  in  the  mere  circumstance  that  it  is 
"  the  life,"  and  he  will  find  it  impossible.  It  is  no  reason  at  all,  moral 
or  instituted,  except  that  as  it  was  life  substituted  for  life,  the  life  of  the 
animal  in  sacrifice  for  the  hfe  of  man,  and  that  it  had  a  sacred  appro- 
priation. The  manner,  too,  in  which  Moses  introduces  the  subject,  is 
indicative  that,  though  he  was  renewing  a  prohibition,  he  was  not  pub- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  173 

lishing  a  "new  doctrine  ;"  he  does  not  teach  his  people  that  God  had 
then  given,  or  appointed,  blood  to  make  atonement ;  but  he  prohibits  them 
from  eating  it,  because  he  had  made  this  appointment,  without  reference 
to  time,  and  as  a  subject  with  which  they  were  familiar.  Because  the 
blood  was  the  hfe,  it  was  sprinkled  upon,  and  poured  out  at  the  altar : 
and  we  have  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb,  and  the  sprinkling  of 
its  blood,  a  sufficient  proof,  that  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  not  only 
was  blood  not  eaten,  but  was  appropriated  to  a  sacred,  sacrificial  pur- 
pose.  Nor  was  this  confined  to  the  Jews ;  it  was  customary  with  the 
Romans  and  Greeks,  who,  in  like  manner,  poured  out  and  sprinkled 
the  blood  of  victims  at  their  altars,  a  rite  derived,  probably,  from  the 
Eg\-ptians,  as  they  derived  it,  not  from  Moses,  but  from  the  sons 
of  Noah.  The  notion,  indeed,  that  the  blood  of  the  victims  was 
peculiarly  sacred  to  the  gods,  is  impressed  upon  all  ancieirt  pagan 
mythology. 

Thirdly,  the  sacrifices  of  the  patriarchs  were  those  of  animal  victims, 
and  their  use  was  to  avert  the  displeasure  of  God  from  sinning  men. 
Thus  in  the  case  of  Job,  who,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  he  did  not  hve 
before  the  law,  was,  at  least,  not  under  the  law,  and  in  whose  country 
the  true  patriarchal  theology'-  was  in  force,  the  prescribed  burnt  offering 
was  for  the  averting  the  "  wrath"  of  God,  which  was  kindled  against 
Ehphaz  and  his  two  friends,  "  lest,"  it  is  added,  "  I  deal  with  you  after 
your  folly."  The  doctrine  of  expiation  could  not,  therefore,  be  more 
exphcitly  declared.  The  burnt  offerings  of  Noah,  also,  after  he  lett  the 
ark,  served  to  avert  the  "  cursing  of  the  ground  any  more  for  man's 
sake,"  that  is,  for  man's  sin,  and  the  "  smiting  any  more  every  thing 
living."  In  like  manner,  the  end  of  Abel's  offering  was  pardon  and 
acceptance  with  God,  and  by  it  these  were  attained,  for  "  he  obtained 
-witness  that  he  was  righteous.''^  But  as  this  is  the  first  sacrifice  which 
we  have  on  record,  and  has  given  rise  to  some  controversy,  it  may  be 
considered  more  largely :  at  present,  however,  the  only  question  is  ks 
expiatory  character. 

As  to  the  matter  of  the  sacrifice,  it  was  an  animal  offering.  "  Cain 
brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground,  and  Abel  he  also  brought  of  the 
firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  of  the  fat  thereof;"  or,  more  hterally,  "  the 
fat  of  them,"  that  is,  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  the  fattest  or  best 
of  his  flock.  Le  Clerc  and  Grotius  would  understand  Abel  to  have 
oflfered  the  wool  and  milk  of  his  flock,  which  interpretation,  if  no  critical 
difficulty  opposed  it,  would  be  rendered  \'iolently  improbable  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  neither  wool  nor  milk  is  ever  mentioned  in  Scripture  as 
fit  oblations  to  God.  But  to  translate  the  word  rendered  firstlings,  by 
best  and  finest,  and  then  to  suppose  an  ellipsis,  and  supply  it  with  wool, 
is  wholly  arbitrar\-,  and  contradicted  by  the  import  of  the  word  itself. 
But,  as  Dr.  Kennicott  remarks,  the  matter  is  set  at  rest  by  the  context ; 

2 


174  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  for,  if  it  be  allowed  by  all,  that  Cain's  bringing  of  the  fruit  of  the 
ground,  means  his  bringing  the  fruit  (itself)  of  the  ground,  then  Abel's 
bringing  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock  must,  likewise,  mean  his  bringing 
the  firstlings  of  his  flock"  (themselves.)  {Two  Dissertations.  See  also 
Magee^s  Discourses.) 

This  is  farther  supported  by  the  import  of  the  phrase  •rXsiova  ^uCiav, 
used  by  the  apostle  in .  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  when  speaking  of 
the  sacrifice  of  Abel.     Our  translators  have  rendered  it  "  a  more  excel- 
lent  sacrifice."     WickUife  translates  it,  as  Archbishop  Magee  observes, 
uncouthly,  but  in  the  full  sense  of  the  original,  "  a  much  more  sacri- 
fice 5*^"  and  the  controversy  which  has  been  had  on  this  point  is,  whether 
this  epithet  of  ''  much  more,"  or  "  fuller,"  refers  to  quantity  or  quality ; 
whether  it  is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  a  ?nore  abundant,  or  of  a 
betterf  a  more  excellent  sacrifice.     Dr.  Kennicott  takes  it  in  the  sense 
of  measure  and  quantity,  as  well  as  quality,  and  supposes  that  Abel 
brought  a  double  offering  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  and  of  the  fruit  of 
the  ground  also.     His  criticism  has  been  very  satisfactorily  refuted  by 
Archbishop  Magee  ;  {Discourses  on  Atonement ;)  and  Mr.  Davison,  who 
has  written  an  acute  work  in  reply  to  those  parts  of  that  learned  prelate's 
work  on  the  atonement,  which  relate  to  the  Divine  origin  of  the  primi- 
tive sacrifices,  has  attempted  no   answer  to  this  criticism,   and  only 
observes  that  "  the  more  abundant  sacrifice  is  the  more  probable  signifi- 
cation of  the  passage,  because  it  is  the  more  natural  force  of  the  term 
•jrXsjova  when  applied  to  a  subject,  as  ^utfjav,  capable  of  measure  and 
quantity."     This  is  but  assumption ;  and  we  read  the  term  in  other 
passages  of  Scripture,  (as  in  Matt,  vi,  25,  "  Is  not  the  life  more  than 
meat,  and  the  body  than  raiment  ?")  where  the  idea  of  quantity  is  neces- 
sarily excluded,  and  that  of  superiority  and  excellence  of  quality,  is  as 
necessarily  intended.     But  why  is  tliis  stress  laid  on  quantity  ?    Are  we 
to  admit  the  strange  principle  that  an  offering  is  acceptable  to  God, 
because  of  its  quantity  alone,  and  that  the  quantity  of  sacrifice,  when 
even  no  measure  has  been  prescribed  by  any  law  of  God,  has  an  abso- 
lute connection  with  the  state  of  the  heart  of  an  offerer  ?    Frequency  or 
non-jfrequency  of  offering  might  have  some  claim  to  be  considered  as 
this-  indication  ;  but,  certainly,  the  quantity  of  gifts,  where,  according  to 
the  opinion  of  those  generally  who  adopt  this  view,  sacrifices  had  not 
yet  been  subjected  to  express  regulation,  would  be  a  very  imperfect 
indication.     If  the  quantity  of  a  sacrifice  could  at  all  indicate,  under 
such  circumstances,  any  moral  quality,  that  quality  would  be  gratitude ; 
but  then  we  must  suppose   Abel's  offering  to  have  been  eucharistic. 
Here,  however,  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  was  that  of  animal  victims,  and  it 
was  indicative  of  faith,  a  quality  not  to  be  made  manifest  by  the  quan- 
tity of  an  offering  made,  for  the  one  has  no  relation  to  the  other ;  and 
the  sacrifice  itself  was,  as  we  shall  see,  of  a  strictly  expiatory  character. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  175 

This  will  more  fully  appear,  if  we  look  at  the  import  of  the  words  of 
the  apostle  in  some  views,  which  have  not  always  been  brought  fully  out 
in  what  has  been  more  recently  written  on  the  subject.  "  By  faith 
Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain,  by  which 
he  obtained  wittjess,  that  he  was  righteous,  God  testifying  of  his 
gifts ;  and  by  it,  he  being  dead  yet  speaketh." 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  when  he  says  that  it  was  wit- 
nessed or  testified  to  Abel  that  he  was  righteous  ?  His  doctrine  is,  that 
men  are  sinners ;  that  all,  consequently,  need  pardon  ;  and  to  be  de- 
clared, witnessed,  or  accounted  righteous,  are,  according  to  his  style  of 
writing,  the  same  as  to  be  justified,  pardoned,  and  dealt  with  as  right- 
eous. Thus,  he  argues  that  "  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
accounted  to  him  for  righteousness" — "  that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abra- 
ham for  righteousness" — "  that  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a 
seal"  a  visible,  confirmatory,  declaratory,  and  witnessing  mark  "  of  the 
righteousness  which  he  had  by  faith."  In  these  cases  we  have  a 
similarity  so  striking,  that  they  can  scarcely  fail  to  explain  each  other. 
In  both,  sinful  men  are  placed  in  the  condition  of  righteous  men — the 
instrument,  in  both  cases,  is  faith ;  and  the  transaction  is,  in  both  cases 
also,  publicly  and  sensibly  witnessed ;  as  to  Abraham,  by  the  sign  of 
circumcision ;  as  to  Abel,  by  a  visible  acceptance  of  his  sacrifice,  and 
the  rejection  of  that  of  Cain. 

But  it  is  said,  "  St.  Paul  affirms  that  Abel,  by  the  acceptance  of  his 
sacrifice,  gained  the  testimony  of  God,  that  he  was  a  righteous  man. 
He  affirms,  therefore,  that  it  was  his  personal  habit  of  righteousness  to 
which  God  vouchsafed  the  testimony  of  his  approbation,  by  that  accept- 
ance of  his  offering.  The  antecedent  faith  in  God,  which  produced 
that  habit  of  a  religious  life,  commended  his  sacrifice,  and  the  Divine 
testimony  was  not  to  the  specific  form  of  his  oblations  ;  but  to  his  actual 
righteousness,^^  {^Davison's  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Intent  of  Primi' 
five  Sacrifice.) 

The  objections  to  this  view  of  the  matter  are  many. 

1.  It  leaves  out  entirely  all  consideration  of  the  difference  between 
the  sacrifice  of  Abel  and  that  of  Cain,  and  places  the  reason  of  the 
acceptance  of  one  and  the  rejection  of  the  other  wholly  in  the  moral 
character  of  the  offerers  ;  whereas  St.  Paul  most  unequivocally  places 
the  acceptance  of  Abel's  offering  upon  its  nature  and  the  principle  of 
faith  which  originated  it.  For,  whether  we  translate  the  phrase  above 
referred  to,  "  a  more  excellent  sacrifice,"  or  "  a  more  abundant  sacri- 
fice," it  is  put  in  contrast  with  the  offering  of  Cain,  and  its  peculiar 
nature  cannot  be  left  out  of  the  account.  By  Mr.  Davison's  interpre- 
tation, the  designation  given  to  Abel's  offering  by  the  apostle  is  entirely 
overlooked. 

2.  The  "  faith"  of  Abel,  in  this  transaction,  is  also  passed  over  as  a 


176  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

consideration  in  the  acceptance  of  his  sacrifice.  It  is,  indeed,  brought 
in  as  "  an  antecedent  faith,  which  produced  the  habit  of  a  reHgious  hfe," 
and  thus  mediately  "commended  the  sacrifice;"  but,  in  fact,  on  this 
ground  any  other  influential  grace  or  principle  might  be  said  to  have 
commended  his  sacrifice,  as  well  as  faith ;  any  thing  which  tended  to 
produce  "  the  habit  of  a  religious  life,"  his  fear  of  God,  his  love  of  God, 
as  effectually  as  his  faith  in  God.  There  is,  then,  this  manifest  differ- 
ence between  this  representation  of  the  case  and  that  which  is  given  by 
St.  Paul,  that  the  one  makes  "  the  habit  of  a  religious  life,"  the  imme- 
diate, and  faith  but  the  remote  reason  of  the  acceptableness  of  Abel's 
gifts ;  while  the  other  assigns  a  direct  efficacy  to  the  faith  of  Abel,  and 
the  kind  of  sacrifice  by  which  that  faith  was  expressed,  and  of  which  it 
was  the  immediate  result. 

3.  In  this  chapter  the  apostle  is  not  speaking  of  faitli  under  the  view 
of  its  tendency  to  induce  a  holy  life ;  but  of  faith  as  producing  certain 
acts  of  very  various  kinds,  which  being  followed  by  manifest  tokens  of 
the  Divine  favour,  showed  how  acceptable  faith  is  to  God,  or  how  it 
"  pleases  him,"  according  to  his  own  position  laid  down  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  chapter — "  Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please 
God."  Abel  had  faith,  and  he  expressed  that  faith  by  the  kind  of  sacri- 
fice he  offered ;  it  was  in  this  way  that  his  faith  "  pleased  God ;"  it 
pleased  him  as  a  principle,  and  by  the  act  to  which  it  led,  and  that  act 
was  the  offering  of  a  sacrifice  to  God  different  from  that  of  Cain.  Cain 
had  not  this  faith,  whatever  might  be  its  object ;  and  Cain  accordingly 
did  not  bring  an  offering  to  which  God  had  "  respect."  That  which 
vitiated  the  offering  of  Cain  was  the  want  of  this  faith,  for  his  offering 
was  not  significant  of  faith ;  that  which  "  pleased  God,"  in  the  case  of 
Abel,  was  his  faith,  and  he  had  "  respect"  to  his  offering,  because  it  was 
the  expression  of  that  faith,  and  upon  his  faith  so  expressing  itself,  God 
witnessed  to  him  "that  he  was  righteous." 

So,  certainly,  do  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  when  commenting  upon  this 
transaction,  establish  it  against  the  author  above  quoted,  that  Abel's 
sacrifice  was  accepted,  because  of  its  immediate  connection  with  his 
faith,  for,  by  faith  he  is  said  to  have  offered  it ;  and  all  that,  whatever 
it  might  be,  which  made  Abel's  offering  differ  from  that  of  Cain,  whe- 
ther abundance,  or  Txind,  or  both,  was  the  result  of  this  faith.  So  clearly, 
also,  is  it  laid  down  by  the  apostle  that  Abel  was  witnessed  to  be  "  right- 
eous,"  not  with  reference  to  any  previous  "  habit  of  a  religious  hfe,"  but 
with  reference  to  his  faitli ;  and  not  to  his  faith  as  leading  to  personal 
righteousness,  but  to  his  faith  as  expressing  itself  by  his  offering  "  a  more 
excellent  sacrifice." 

Mr.  Davison,  in  support  of  his  opinion,  adopts  the  argument  of  many 
before  him,  that  "  the  rest  of  Scripture  speaks  to  Abel's  personal  right- 
eousness.     Thus,  in   St.  John's  distinction  between  Cain   and  Abel, 


SBCOAD.j  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  177 

*  wherefore  slew  he  him  ?  because  his  own  works  were  evil,  and  his 
brother's  righteous.'  Thus  in  the  remonstrance  of  God  with  Cain,  that 
remonstrance  with  Cain's  envy  for  the  acceptance  of  Abel's  offering  is 
directed,  not  to  the  mode  of  their  sacrifice,  but  to  the  good  and  evil 
doings  of  their  respective  lives — '  If  thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be  ac- 
cepted, and  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door.' "  {Inquiry^  6fc.) 

With  respect  to  the  words  in  St.  John,  they  may  be  allowed  to  refer 
to  Abel's  "  personal  righteousness,"  without  affecting  the  statement  of 
St.  Paul  in  the  least.  It  would  be  a  bad  rule  of  criticism  fully  to  ex- 
plain the  comments  of  one  sacred  writer  upon  a  transaction,  the  principle 
and  nature  of  which  he  explains  professedly,  by  the  remark  of  another, 
when  the  subject  is  introduced  only  allusively  and  incidentally.  St. 
John's  words  must  not  here  be  brought  in  to  qualify  St.  Paul's  exposi- 
tion ;  but  St.  Paul's  exposition  to  complete  the  incidental  allusion  of  St. 
John.  Both  apostles  agreed  that  no  man  was  righteous  personally,  till 
he  was  made  righteous  by  forgiveness ;  accounted  and  witnessed  right- 
eous by  faith ;  and  both  agree  that  from  that  follows  a  personal  right- 
eousness. If  St.  John,  then,  refers  to  Abel's  personal  righteousness,  he 
refers  to  it  as  flowing  from  his  justification  and  acceptance  with  God, 
and  by  that  personal  righteousness  the  "  wrath"  of  Cain,  which  was  first 
excited  by  the  rejection  of  his  sacrifice,  was,  probably  ripened  into  the 
"  hatred"  which  led  on  his  fratricide ;  for  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
committed  that  act  immediately  upon  the  place  of  sacrifice,  but  at  some 
subsequent  period ;  and,  certainly,  it  was  not  the  antecedent  holy  life 
of  Abel  which  first  produced  Cain's  displeasure  against  his  brother,  for 
that  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  transactions  on  the  day  in  which  each 
brought  his  offering  to  the  Lord.  St.  John's  reference  to  Abel's  per- 
sonal righteousness  does  not,  therefore,  exclude  a  reference  also,  and 
even  primarily  to  his  faith  as  its  instrumental  cause,  and  the  source  of 
its  support  and  nourishment ;  and,  we  may  add,  that  it  is  St.  John's 
rule,  and  must  be  the  rule  of  every  New  Testament  writer,  to  regard 
a  man's  submission  to,  or  rejection  of,  God's  method  of  saving  men 
by  faith,  as  the  best  evidence  of  personal  righteousness,  or  the  contrary. 

As  to  Genesis  iv,  7,  "  If  thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted ; 
and  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door,"  in  order  to  show  that 
it  cannot  be  proved  from  this  passage,  that  AbeFs  offering  was  accepted 
because  of  his  personal  righteousness,  it  is  not  necessary  to  avail  our- 
selves  of  Lightfoot's  view  of  it,  who  takes  "  sni"  to  be  the  ellipsis  of  sin 
offering,  as  in  many  places  of  Scripture.  For  and  against  this  render- 
ing much  ingenious  criticism  has  been  employed,  for  which  the  critics 
must  be  consulted.  (4)     The  interpretation  which  supposes  Cain  to  be 

(4)  Nearly  all  that  can  be  said  on  this  interpretation  will  be  found  in  Magee's 
Discourses  on  the  Atonement,  and  Davison's  Reply  to  his  criticism,  in  his  In- 
quiry into  the  Origin  of  Primitive  Sacrifice. 

Vol.  II.  12 


178  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

referred  to  a  sin  offering,  an  animal  victim  "lying  at  the  door,"  is,  at 
best,  doubtful ;  but  if  this  be  conceded,  the  argument  framed  upon  the 
declaration  to  Cain,  "  if  thou  doest  well,  shalt  not  thou  be  accepted," 
as  though  the  reason  of  the  acceptance  of  Abel's  sacrifice  was  in  "  well 
doing"  in  the  moral  sense  only,  is  wholly  groundless,  since  the  apostle 
so  explicitly  refers  the  reason  of  the  acceptance  of  his  sacrifice  to  his 
faiths  as  before  established.  It  is  enough  to  show  that  there  is  nothing 
in  these  words  to  contradict  this,  even  if  we  take  them  in  the  most  ob- 
vious sense,  and  omit  the  consideration  that  the  Hebrew  text  has,  in  this 
place,  been  disturbed,  of  which  there  are  strong  indications.  The  pas- 
sage may  be  taken  in  two  views.  Either  to  "  do  well,'"  may  mean  to  do 
as  Abel  had  done,  viz.  to  repent  and  bring  those  sacrifices  which  should 
express  his  faith  in  God's  appointed  method  of  pardoning  and  accepting 
men,  thus  submitting  himself  wholly  to  God  ;  and  then  it  is  a  merciful 
intimation  that  Cain's  rejection  was  not  final ;  but  that  it  depended  upon 
himself,  whether  he  would  seek  God  in  sincerity  and  truth.  Or  the 
words  may  be  considered  as  a  declaration  of  the  principles  of  God's 
righteous  government  over  men.  "If  thou  doest  well,"  if  thou  art 
righteous  and  unsinning,  thou  shalt  be  accepted  as  such,  without  sacri- 
fice ;  "  but  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door,"  and  is  chargea- 
ble upon  thee  with  its  consequence ;  thus,  after  declaring  his  moral 
condition,  leaving  it  to  himself  to  seek  for  pardon  in  the  method  esta- 
blished in  the  first  family,  and  which  Cain  must  be  supposed  to  have 
known  as  well  as  Abel,  or,  otherwise,  we  must  suppose  that  they  had 
received  no  religious  instruction  at  all  from  Adam  their  father.  To  the 
former  view  of  the  sense  of  the  passage  it  cannot  be  objected  that  to 
offer  proper  sacrifices  from  a  right  principle  cannot  be  called,  in  the 
common  and  large  sense  "  to  do  well,"  for  even  "  to  believe"  is  called 
"  a  work"  by  our  Saviour ;  and  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  was,  moreover,  an 
act,  or  a  series  of  acts,  which  were  the  expressions  of  his  faith,  and, 
therefore,  might  be  called  a  doing  well,  without  any  violence.  Agreeably 
to  this,  the  whole  course  of  the  submission  of  the  Jews  to  the  laws  con- 
cerning their  sacrifices,  is  often,  in  Scripture,  designated  by  the  terms 
obedience,  and  ways,  and  doings.  The  second  interpretation  corres- 
ponds  to  the  great  axiom  of  moral  government  alluded  to  by  St.  Paul, 
"  This  do  and  thou  shalt  live,"  which  is  so  far  from  excluding  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith,  that  it  is  the  ground  on  which  he  argues  it, 
inasmuch  as  it  shuts  out  the  justification  of  men  by  law  when  it  has  once 
been  violated. 

If,  then,  it  has  been  established  that  the  faith  of  Abel  had  an  imme- 
diate connection  with  his  sacrifice  ;  and  both  with  his  being  accepted  as 
righteous,  that  is,  justified,  in  St.  Paul's  use  of  the  term,  to  what  had  his 
faith  respect  ?  The  particular  object  of  the  faith  of  the  elders,  celebrated 
in  Hebrews  xi,  is  to  be  deduced  from  the  circumstances  adduced  as 
2 


SEC02VD.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  179 

illustrative  of  the  existence  and  operation  of  this  great  principle,  and 
by  which  it  manifested  itself.  Let  us  illustrate  this,  and  then  ascer- 
tain the  objects  of  Abel's  faith  also  from  the  manner  of  its  mani- 
festation, from  the  acts  in  which  it  embodied  and  rendered  itself  con- 
spicuous. 

Faith  is,  in  this  chapter,  taken  in  the  sense  of  affiance  in  God,  and,  as 
such,  it  can  only  be  exercised  toward  God  as  to  all  particular  acts,  in 
those  respects,  in  which  we  have  some  authority  to  confide  in  him. 
This  supposes  revelation,  and,  in  particular,  some  promise  or  declaration 
on  his  part,  as  the  warrant  for  every  act  of  affiance.  When,  therefore, 
it  is  said  that  "  by  faith  Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not  see 
death,"  it  must  be  supposed  that  he  had  some  promise  or  intimation  to 
this  effect,  on  which,  improbable  as  the  event  was,  he  nobly  relied,  and 
in  the  result  God  honoured  his  faith  before  all  men.  The  faith  of  Noah 
had  immediate  respect  to  the  threatened  flood,  and  the  promise  of  God 
to  preserve  him  in  the  ark  which  he  was  commanded  to  prepare.  The 
faith  of  Abraham  had  different  objects.  In  one  of  the  instances  which 
this  chapter  records,  it  respected  the  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  to 
his  posterity,  and  also  the  promise  of  the  heavenly  inheritance,  of  which 
that  was  the  type  ;  which  faith  he  publicly  manifested  by  "  sojourning 
in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  strange  country,"  and  "  dwelling  in  taber- 
nacles," rather  than  taking  up  a  permanent  residence  in  any  of  its  cities, 
because  "  he  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations."  In  the  case  of 
the  offering  of  Isaac,  he  believed  that  God  would  raise  his  immolated 
son  from  the  dead,  and  the  ground  of  his  faith  is  stated,  in  verse  18,  to 
be  the  promise,  "  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called."  The  faith  of  Sarah 
respected  the  promise  of  issue, — "  she  judged  him  faithful  who  had  prO' 
misedy  "By  faith  Isaac  blessed  Jacob  and  Esau  concerning  things  to 
come,"  which  faith  had  for  its  object  the  revelation  made  to  him  by 
God  as  to  the  future  lot  of  the  posterity  of  his  two  sons.  The  chapter 
is  filled  with  other  instances  expressed  or  implied  ;  and  from  the  whole, 
as  well  as  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  it  will  appear  that  when  the 
apostle  speaks  of  the  faith  of  the  elders  in  its  particular  acts,  he 
represents  it  as  having  respect  to  some  promise,  declaration,  or  revela- 
tion  of  God. 

This  revelation  was  necessarily  antecedent  to  the  faith  ;  but  it  is  also 
to  be  observed,  that  the  acts  by  which  the  faith  was  represented,  when- 
ever it  was  represented  by  particular  acts,  and  when  the  case  admitted 
it,  had  a  natural  and  striking  conformity  and  correspondence  to  the 
previous  revelation.  So  Noah  built  the  ark,  which  indicated  that  he 
had  heard  the  threat  of  the  world's  destruction  by  water,  and  had  re- 
ceived  the  promise  of  his  own  and  family's  preservation,  as  well  as  that 
of  a  selection  of  the  beasts  of  the  earth  ;  to  all  which  the  means  of  pre- 
servation, by  which  his  faith  was  represented,  and  which  it  led  him  to 

2 


180  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

adopt,  corresponded.  When  Abraham  went  into  Canaan,  at  the  com- 
mand of  God,  and  upon  the  promise  that  that  country  should  become 
the  inheritance  of  his  descendants,  he  showed  his  faith  by  taking  pos- 
session  of  it  for  them  in  anticipation,  and  his  residence  there  indicated 
the  kind  of  promise  which  he  had  received.  When  he  hved  in  that 
promised  land  in  tents,  though  opulent  enough  to  have  established  him- 
self  in  a  more  settled  state,  the  very  manner  in  which  his  faith  expressed 
itself,  showed  that  he  had  received  the  promise  of  a  "  better  country," 
which  made  him  willing  to  be  a  "  stranger  and  wanderer  on  earth ;" 
for  "they  that  say  such  things,"  says  the  apostle,  namely,  that  they  are 
strangers  and  pilgrims,  "  confessing"  it  by  these  significant  acts,  "  declare 
plainly  that  they  seek  a  country,"  "  that  is,  a  heavenly."  Thus,  also, 
when  Moses's  faith  expressed  itself,  in  his  refusing  to  be  called  the  son 
of  Pharaoh's  daughter,  this  also  clearly  indicated  that  he  had  received 
the  promise  of  something  higher  and  more  excellent  than  "  the  riches 
of  Egypt,"  which  he  renounced,  even  "  the  recompense  of  the  reward," 
to  which,  we  are  told,  "  he  had  respect."  When  his  faith  manifested 
itself  by  his  forsaking  Egypt  at  the  head  of  his  people,  «  not  fearing  the 
wrath  of  the  king,"  this  indicated  that  he  had  received  a  promise  of  pro- 
tection  and  success,  and  he,  therefore,  "  endured  as  seeing  Him  who  is 
invisible." 

If,  then,  all  these  instances  show,  that  when  the  faith  which  the  apos- 
tle commends  exhibits  itself  in  some  particular  act,  that  act  has  a  cor- 
respondency to  the  previous  promise  or  revelation,  which  faith  must  have 
for  its  ground  and  reason,  then  are  we  constrained  to  interpret  the  acts 
of  Abel's  faitli,  so  as  to  make  them  also  correspond  with  some  antece- 
dent revelation,  or  rather,  we  must  suppose  that  the  antecedent  revela- 
tion, though  not  expressly  stated,  (which  is  also  the  case  in  several  other 
of  the  instances  which  are  given  in  the  chapter,)  must  have  corresponded 
with  them.  His  faith  had  respect  to  some  previous  revelation,  and  the 
nature  of  the  revelation  is  to  be  collected  from  the  significant  manned 
in  which  he  declared  his  faith  in  it. 

Now  that  which  Abel  did,  "  by  faith,"  was,  if  considered  generally^  to 
perform  an  act  of  solemn  worship,  in  the  confidence  that  it  would  be 
acceptable  to  God.  This  supposes  a  revelation,  immediate  or  by  tradi- 
tion,  that  such  acts  of  worship  were  acceptable  to  God,  or  his  faith 
could  have  had  no  warrant,  and  would  not  have  been  faith,  but  fancy. 
But  the  case  must  be  considered  more  particularly.  His  faith  led  him 
to  ofier  "  a  more  excellent  sacrifice"  than  that  of  Cain  ;  but  this  as  ne- 
cessarily implies,  that  there  was  some  antecedent  revelation,  to  which  his 
faith,  as  thus  expressed,  had  respect,  and  on  which  that  peculiarity  of 
his  offering,  which  distinguished  it  from  the  offering  of  Cain,  was  founds 
ed ;  a  revelation  which  indicated,  that  the  way  in  which  God  would  be 
approached  acceptably,  in  solemn  worship,  was  by  animal  sacrifices. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  181 

Without  this,  too,  the  faith  to  which  his  offering,  which  was  an  offering 
of  the  firsthngs  of  his  flock,  had  a  special  fitness  and  adaptation,  could 
have  had  no  warrant  in  Divine  authority.  But  this  revelation  must  have 
included,  in  order  to  its  being  the  ground  of  faith,  as  "  the  substance  of 
things  hoped  for,"  a  promise  of  a  benefit  to  be  conferred,  in  which  pro- 
mise Abel  might  confide.  But  if  so,  then  this  promise  must  have  been 
connected,  not  with  the  worship  of  God  in  general,  or  performed  in  any- 
way whatever  indifferently,  but  with  his  worship  by  animal  oblations ; 
for  it  was  in  this  way  that  the  faith  of  Abel  indicated  itself,  specially  and 
distinctively.  The  antecedent  revelation  was,  therefore,  a  promise  of  a 
benefit  to  be  conferred,  by  means  of  animal  sacrifice  ;  and  we  are  taught 
what  this  benefit  was,  by  that  which  was  actually  received  by  the  offerer 
— "  he  obtained  witness  that  he  was  righteous ;"  which,  if  the  notion  of 
his  antecedent  righteousness  has  been  refuted,  must  be  interpreted  in  the 
sense  of  a  declaration  of  his  personal  justification,  and  acceptance  as 
righteous,  upon  forgiveness  of  his  sins.  The  reason  of  Abel's  accept, 
ance  and  of  Cain's  rejection  is  hereby  made  manifest ;  the  one,  in 
seeking  the  Divine  favour,  conformed  to  his  established  and  appointed 
method  of  being  approached  by  guilty  men,  and  the  other  not  only 
neglected  this,  but  profanely  and  presumptuously  substituted  his  own 
inventions. 

It  is  impossible,  then,  to  allow  the  act  of  Abel,  in  this  instance,  to  have 
been  an  act  of  faith,  without  allowing  that  it  had  respect  to  a  previous 
and  appropriate  revelation  ;  a  revelation  which  agreed  to  all  the  parts 
of  that  sacrificial  action,  by  which  he  expressed  his  faith  in  it.  Had 
Abel's  sacrifice  been  eucharistic  merely,  it  would  have  expressed  grati- 
tude, but  not  faith ;  or  if  faith  in  the  general  sense  of  confidence  in  God 
that  he  would  receive  an  act  of  grateful  worship,  and  reward  the  wor- 
sliipper,  it  did  not  more  express  faith  than  the  offering  of  Cain,  who 
surely  believed  these  two  points,  or  he  would  not  have  brought  an  offer- 
ing of  any  kind.  The  offering  of  Abel  expressed  a  faith  which  Cain 
had  not,  and  the  doctrinal  principles  which  Abel's  faith  respected,  were 
such  as  his  sacrifice  visibly  embodied.  If  it  was  not,  then,  an  eucha- 
ristic sacrifice,  it  was  an  expiatory  one ;  and,  in  fact,  it  is  only  in  a 
sacrifice  of  this  kind,  that  it  is  possible  to  see  that  faith  exhibited,  which 
Abel  had,  and  Cain  had  not.  By  subsequent  sacrifices  of  expiation, 
then,  is  this  early  expiatory  offering  to  be  explained,  and  from  these  it 
will  be  obvious  to  what  doctrines  and  principles  of  an  antecedent  reve- 
lation the  faith  of  Abel  had  respect,  and  which  his  sacrifice,  the  exhibi- 
tion  of  his  faith,  proclaimed.  Confession  of  the  fact  of  being  a  sinner — 
acknowledgment  of  the  demerit  and  penalty  of  sin  and  death — submis- 
sion to  an  appointed  mode  of  expiation ;  animal  sacrifice  offered  vicari- 
ously, but,  in  itself,  a  mere  type  of  a  better  sacrifice,  "  the  seed  of  the 
woman,"  appointed  to  be  offered  at  some  future  period — the  efficacy  of 

3 


182  THEOLOGICAL    IXSTITUTES.  [PART 

this  appointed  method  of  expiation  to  obtain  forgiveness  and  to  admit 
the  guilty  into  the  Divine  favour. 

For  these  reasons,  we  think  that  the  conclusion  of  many  of  our  an- 
cient divines,  so  admirably  embodied  in  the  following  words  of  Archbishop 
Magee,  is  not  too  strong,  but  is  fully  supported  l)y  the  argument  of  the 
case  as  founded  upon  the  brief  but  very  explicit  declarations  of  the 
history  of  the  transaction  in  Genesis,  and  by  the  comment  upon  it  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

"  Abel,  in  firm  reliance  on  the  promise  of  God,  and  in  obedience  to 
his  command,  offered  that  sacrifice,  which  had  been  enjoined  as  the 
religious  expression  of  his  faith ;  while  Cain,  disregarding  the  gracious 
assurances  that  had  been  vouchsafed,  or  at  least  disdaining  to  adopt  the 
prescribed  mode  of  manifesting  his  belief,  possibly  as  not  appearing  to 
his  reason  to  possess  any  efficacy  or  natural  fitness,  thought  he  had  suffi- 
ciently  acquitted  himself  of  his  duty  in  acknowledging  the  general  super- 
intendence  of  God,  and  expressing  his  gratitude  to  the  Supreme  Bene- 
factor,  by  presenting  some  of  those  good  things,  which  he  thereby  con- 
fessed to  have  been  derived  from  his  bounty.  In  short,  Cain,  the  first 
born  of  the  fall,  exhibits  the  first  fruits  of  his  parents'  disobedience,  in 
the  arrogance  and  self  sufficiency  of  reason  rejecting  the  aids  of  reve- 
lation,  because  they  fell  not  within  its  apprehension  of  right.  He  takes 
the  first  place  in  the  annals  of  Deism,  and  displays,  in  his  proud  rejec- 
tion of  the  ordinance  of  sacrifice,  the  same  spirit,  which,  in  later  days, 
has  actuated  his  enlightened  followers,  in  rejecting  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ." 

If  it  should  be  asked,  what  evidence  we  have  from  Scripture,  that 

such  an  antecedent  revelation  as  that  to  which  we  have  said  Abel's  faith 

must  have  had  respect,  was  made,  the  reply  is,  that  if  this  rested  only 

upon  the  necessary  inferences  which,  in  all  fairness  and  consistency  of 

interpretation,  we  must  draw  from  the  circumstances  of  the  transaction, 

when  combined  with  the  apostle's  interpretation  of  it,  the  ground  would 

be  strong  enough  to  enable  us  to  defend  it  against  both  the  attacks  of 

Socinians,  and  of  those  orthodox  divines  who,  like  Mr.  Davison,  would 

wrest  it  from  us,  as  an  unnecessary  post  to  be  taken  in  the  combat  with 

the  impugners  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  atonement,  or  one  which  is 

rather  injurious  than  otherwise  to  the  efficiency  of  the  more  direct  argu- 

ment.     "  Such  expositions,"  says  Mr.  Davison,  "  do  evil  and  disservice 

to  truth  ;  they  bring  in  a  wrong  principle  ;  they  enforce  a  comment 

without  a  text.     Such  a  principle  is,  undoubtedly,  wrong,  and  has  been 

the  source  of  much  religious  speculation."     This  we  grant,  and  feel 

how  important  the  caution  is.     But  it  does  not  here  apply.     It  is  not 

enough  to  say  that  "  the  text"  is  not  in  the  "  Mosaic  history ;"  we  must 

prove  that  it  is  not  in  the  New  Testament,  or  necessarily  implied  in  its 

comments  upon  and  inferences  from  Old  Testament  facts  and  rela. 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  183 

tions.  Tlie  "  text"  itself,  supposed  to  be  wanting,  may  be  there,  and 
even  "  the  comment"  of  an  inspired  writer  often  supphes  the  text,  and 
his  reasoning  the  premises  wanting,  in  so  many  words,  in  the  brief  and 
veiled  narrative  of  Moses.  An  uninspired  comment,  we  grant,  has  not 
this  prerogative  ;  but  an  inspired  one  has,  which  is  an  important  consi- 
deration, not  to  be  overlooked.  When  we  say  that  the  maivna,  which 
fell  in  the  wilderness,  represented  the  supply  of  the  spiritual  Israel  with 
the  true  bread  which  comes  down  from  heaven,  Mr.  Davison  might  reply 
this  is  "  the  comment ;"  but  where  is  "  the  text  ?"  We  acknowledge 
that  the  text  upon  which  this  comment  is  hung,  is  not  in  the  history  of 
Moses  ;  but  the  authority  of  this  comment,  and,  if  we  may  so  speak,  an 
implied  "  text"  itself,  is  to  be  found  in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  who  calls 
himself  "  that  bread ;"  and  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  who  terms  the  manna 
the  "  spiritual"  or  typical  bread.  If  we  allege  that  the  "  rock,"  which 
when  smitten  poured  forth  its  stream  to  refresh  the  fainting  Israelites, 
was  a  figure  of  Christ,  it  might,  in  like  manner,  be  urged  that  "  the  text" 
is  wanting,  and,  certainly,  we  should  not  gather  that  view  from  the  his- 
tory  of  Moses ;  yet  "  the  comment"  is  not  ours,  but  that  of  the  apostle, 
who  says  "  that  Rock  was  Christ,"  which  can  only  be  understood  as 
asserting  that  it  was  an  instituted  and  appointed  type  of  Christ.  Where 
we  have  no  intimations  of  such  adumbrations  in  the  persons  and  trans, 
actions  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  invent  them,  nor 
can  we  justly  carry  them  beyond  what  is  expressed  by  our  inspired 
authority,  or  naturally  and  fairly  inferred  to  be  from  it.  On  the 
other  hand  we  are  bound  not  to  interpret  the  Old  Testament  with- 
out  reference  to  the  New  ;  and  not  to  disregard  that  light  which  the 
perfect  revelation  affords  not  only  by  its  direct  effulgence,  but  by 
its  reflections  upon  the  history  of  our  redemption,  up  to  the  earhest 
ages. 

If  it  be  argued,  from  the  silence  of  the  Mosaic  history,  that  such  types 
and  allusions  were  not  understood  as  such  by  the  persons  among  whom 
they  were  first  instituted,  the  answer  is,  1.  That  though  they  should 
not  be  supposed  capable  of  understanding  them  as  clearly  as  we  do,  yet 
it  must  be  supposed,  that  the  spiritual  among  them  had  their  knowledge 
and  faith  greatly  assisted  by  them,  and  that  they  were  among  those 
"  wondrous  things  of  the  law,"  which  were,  in  some  measure,  revealed 
to  those  who  prayed  with  David,  that  their  eyes  might  be  opened  "  to 
behold  them,"  or  otherwise  they  were  totally  without  religious  use 
during  all  the  ages  previous  to  Christianity,  £uid  we  must  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  whole  system  of  types  was  without  edification  to  the 
Jews,  and  are  instructive  only  to  us.  If  we  conclude  thus  as  to  types, 
we  may  come  to  the  same  conclusion  as  to  the  prophecies  of  Messiah, 
to  the  spiritual  meaning  and  real  application  of  many  of  which  there 
appears  to  be  as  little  indication  of  a  key  as  to  the  types.     But  this  can- 


184  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

not  be  affirmed,  for  St.  Peter  tells  us,  that  of  this  "  salvation  the  pro. 
phets  searched  diligently  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should  come 
unto  you  ;  searching  what  or  what  manner  of  time  the  spirit  which  was 
in  ihem  did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
and  the  gloiy  that  should  follow."  The  prophecies  could,  probably,  be 
but  dimly  interpreted  ;  but  something  was  known  of  their  general  mean- 
ing,  something  important  was  obtained  by  <<  searching"  to  reward  the 
search  into  their  import.  The  same  discovery  of  the  general  import 
and  bearing  of  the  types,  must  also  have  rewarded  a  search  equally  eager 
and  pious.  If  this  is  not  allowed,  then  they  were  not  types  to  the  an- 
cient Church,  a  position  which  is  contradicted  by  St.  Paul,  who  declares, 
as  to  one  instance,  which  may  serve  for  the  rest,  namely,  the  entering 
of  "  the  priest  alone  once  every  year  into  the  inner  tabernacle,"  that  by 
this  "  the  Holy  Ghost  signified  that  the  way  to  the  holiest  was  not  yet 
made  manifest,"  and  that  the  tabernacle  itself,  including  of  course,  its 
services,  "  was  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present,  in  or  during 
which  gifts  and  sacrifices  were  offered." 

But,  2.  We  have,  in  one  of  the  instances  before  adverted  to  in  He- 
brews xi,  a  direct  proof  of  a  distinct  revelation,  which  is  nowhere  recorded 
in  the  Mosaic  history  separate  from  the  temporal  promise  in  which  it 
appears  to  have  been  involved.  By  faith  Abraham,  having  received  the 
promise  of  Canaan  as  "  a  place  which  he  should  afterward  receive  for 
an  inheritance,"  went  to  sojourn  there ;  but  by  faith  also  he  sojourned 
in  this  land  of  promise  as  a  stranger,  dwelHng  in  tents,  "  for  he  looked 
for  a  city  which  had  foundations,"  for  the  "  heavenly  state,"  and  by  that 
act  he,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  "  the  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  promise," 
declared  plainly  that  they  "  desired  a  better  country,  even  a  heavenly." 
Of  this  better  country  they  then  received  a  promise,  which  promise  is 
not  distinctly  recorded  in  the  history  of  Moses  ;  and  it  must,  therefore, 
have  been  either  included  in  the  promise  of  Canaan,  which  was  made  to 
them  and  their  descendants,  as  a  type,  an  understood  type,  of  the  eternal 
and  heavenly  rest,  which  is  agreeable  to  the  allusions  of  St.  Paul  in  other 
parts  of  the  epistle ;  or  else  it  wels  matter  of  separate  and  unrecorded 
revelation.  In  either  view  the  history  of  Moses  is  silent,  and  yet  we  are 
compelled,  by  the  comment  of  the  apostle,  and  in  opposition  to  the  argu- 
ment vv'hich  Mr.  Davison  and  others  found  upon  that  silence,  to  allow 
either'a  collateral  revelation,  separate  from  the  promise  of  Canaan,  or 
that  that  promise  itself  had  a  mystic  sense  which  became  the  object  of 
their  faith ;  and  thus  the  inspired  comment  of  the  apostle  supplies  a  text 
wanting  in  the  history,  or  an  enlarged  interpretation  of  that  which  is 
found  in  it. 

With  this  case  of  Abraham,  Mr.  Davison  is  evidently  perplexed,  and 
feels  how  forcibly  it  bears  against  his  own  rules  of  interpreting  the 
Mosaic  history  of  the  religion  of  those  early  ages.     He  justly  contends. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  185 

against  Grotius  and  Le  Clerc,  that  the  object  of  the  faith  recorded  in 
Hebrews  xi,  was  not  always  a  temporal  one.  But,  then,  he  proposes 
to  show  "  how  God,  without  having  granted  to  those  patriarchs  the  ex- 
plicit revelation  of  an  eternal  heavenly  state,  a  revelation  which  is  no- 
where exhibited  in  the  Pentateuch,  trained  them  to  the  aim  and  implicit 
persuasion  of  that  eternal  state  by  large  and  indejinite  promises  of  being 
*  their  God'  and  '  their  great  reward,'  promises  to  which  the  present  life, 
as  to  them,  furnished  no  adequate  completion."  Thus,  then,  we  are  to 
conclude,  that  the  heavenly  state  to  which  these  patriarchs  looked,  was 
a  matter  of  entire  inference  from  the  promise  that  God  would  be  "  their 
God  and  their  reward,"  and  from  the  consideration  that  nothing  had 
occurred  to  them,  in  this  present  hfe,  to  be  adequate  to  these  promises. 
To  the  latter  we  may  reply  that,  if  this  were  the  only  ground  of  their 
faith,  they  could  not  have  made  the  inference  till  the  close  of  hfe ;  for 
how  could  they  know  that  something  adequate  to  these  promises,  if  not 
previously  explained  to  refer  chiefly  to  the  future  state,  might  not  yet, 
though  after  much  delay,  occur  to  them  ?  But  they  had  this  faith  from 
the  very  giving  of  the  promises,  and,  therefore,  it  was  not  left  to  future 
inference  from  circumstances.  With  respect  to  the  former,  that  they 
inferred  that  there  was  a  heavenly  state,  from  the  promise  to  Abraham, 
*'  I  will  be  thy  God,"  when  no  previous  "  explicit  revelation"  of  a  future 
state  was  made  ;  it  not  only  supposes  that  the  patriarchs  had  no  revela- 
tion at  all  of  a  future  hfe,  no  knowledge  of  the  soul's  immortality,  or  of 
a  general  judgment,  of  which,  indeed,  "  Enoch  prophesied  ;"  but  it  is 
inconsistent  with  the  public  and  expressive  action,  (an  action,  probably, 
intended  to  be  instructive  as  a  symbolical  one  to  all  with  whom  Abra- 
ham was  connected  in  Canaan,)  that  he  "  dwelt  in  tents,"  in  order  "  to 
declare  plainly  that  he  sought  a  better  country."  This,  surely,  was  not 
an  action  to  be  founded  upon  a  probable,  but  still  uncertain,  inference 
from  the  unexplained  general  promise,  "  I  will  be  thy  God  ;"  but  one 
which  was  suited  only  to  express  a  firm  faith  in  an  explicit  revelation 
and  a  particular  promise. 

But  the  whole  of  this  theory  is  swept  away  entirely  by  the  declara- 
tion of  the  apostle,  "  These  all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the 
PROMISES,"  that  is,  the  things  promised  ;  "  but  having  seen  them  afar  off, 
and  were  persuaded  of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that 
they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth ;"  strangers,  not  at  home, 
pilgrims,  journeying  to  it.  Now  this  home,  this  better  country  which 
they  sought,  the  apostle  here  expressly  says  was  not  to  them  matter  of 
inference,  but  the  subject  of  "  promises,"  in  the  faith  of  which  they  both 
lived  and  died. 

In  the  case  of  Abel's  offering,  as  in  those  just  given,  the  inspired  com- 
ment of  the  apostle  supplies  "the  text"  to  the  history;  or,  in  other 
words,  it  so  illustrates  and  enlarges  our  knowledge  of  the  transaction, 

2 


186  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES,  [PART 

m  its  principles  and  antecedent  circumstances,  that  we  are  bound  to 
understand  it  not  as  persons  who  have  not  this  additional  information, 
or  those  who  choose  to  disregard  it,  but  as  it  is  explained  upon  authori- 
ty  not  to  be  questioned.  Abel,  says  the  apostle,  offered  his  more  excel- 
lent sacrifice  "byyaz^A,"  and  faith  must  have  respect  to  a  preceding 
revelation. 

We  have  just  seen  what  doctrinal  principles  were  implied  in  the 
practice  of  expiatory  sacrifices,  and  if  Abel's  sacrifice  was  of  this  kind, 
which  is  the  only  satisfactory  account  which  can  be  given  of  it,  we  have 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  included  any  thing  less  or  lower  than  those 
appointed  under  the  law,  and  which  are  expressly  stated  to  be  types 
and  figures,  and  shadows  of  the  evangelical  expiation  of  sin.  An  ante- 
cedent revelation  to  this  effect  must  be  supposed  as  the  ground  of  his 
faith  ;  but  we  are  not  left  wholly  to  this  :  we  have  an  account,  though 
brief,  of  such  a  revelation. 

That  the  account  is  brief  is  no  objection.  What  is  written  is  not, 
for  that  reason,  to  be  disregarded.  There  were,  doubtless,  reasons 
sufficiently  wise  why  the  history  of  the  patriarchal  ages  was  not  more 
largely  given.  If  it  were  only  to  exercise  our  diligence,  and  to  lead  us 
to  resort  to  what  has  been  called  "  the  analogy  of  faith,"  and  to  inter- 
pret  Scripture  by  Scripture,  the  reason  would  be  important.  In  arguing 
from  this  brevity  or  silence,  however,  both  against  the  Divine  institution 
of  primitive  sacrifice,  and  the  evangelical  interpretation  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Abel,  some  writers  are  apt  to  overlook  the  fact,  that  the  book  of 
Genesis  is  but  a  sketch  of  this  period  of  ancient  history  ;  that  it  is  so 
throughout,  and  that  it  nowhere  professes  to  be  more.  Arguments 
of  this  kind,  as  that  of  Bishop  Warburton,  who  thinks  it  strange  that  if 
sacrifice  were  of  Divine  institution,  not  more  is  said  on  so  important  a 
subject,  seem,  insensibly,  to  proceed  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
book  of  Genesis  was  the  ritual  and  directory  of  the  patriarchal  Church, 
as  that  of  Leviticus  was  the  ritual  of  the  Jewish.  The  absence  of  any 
account  of  the  institution  and  prescribed  mode  of  sacrifice  might,  in  that 
case,  have  been  thought  strange ;  but  it  is  a  brief  history,  evidently  in- 
tended only  to  be  introductory  to  that  of  God's  chosen  people,  the  Jews, 
whose  proper  historiographer  Moses,  by  Divine  suggestion,  became. 
Moses  grounds  no  argument  upon  any  part  of  it  in  favour  of  his  own 
institutions,  except  it  may  be  an  implied  one  in  favour  of  the  peculiar 
relation  of  the  Jews  to  God,  as  the  seed  of  Abraham,  to  whom  the  land 
of  Canaan  was  promised,  and  with  whom  a  special  covenant  was  made. 
The  history  of  Abraham  he  was,  therefore,  bound  to  relate  more  at 
length,  and  he  has  done  so  ;  but  where  no  immediate  application  of 
former  events  was  to  be  made  in  this  way,  and  the  object  was  merely 
that  of  brief  general  instruction,  we  can  see  no  particular  rules  binding 
upon  him  to  omit  or  to  insert  any  thing,  to  dilate,  or  to  contract  his  nar- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  187 

rative.     If  we  are  to  argue  from  the  brevity  or  the  omissions  of  the  nar- 
rative of  the  book  of  Genesis,  we  may  often  fall  into  great  absurdities, 
as  many  have  done ;  and  it  might,  indeed,  be  almost  as  fairly  argued 
from  the  silence  of  this  rapid  history  of  the  antediluvian  world,  that  no 
code  of  morals  was  Divinely  enjoined  before  the  giving  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments, as  that  sacrifices  were  not  Divinely  instituted  before  the 
mandates  issued  from  Sinai ;  for  the  silence  of  the  book  of  Genesis 
equally  respects  both.     We  rather  choose  to  argue,  that  as  moral  obe- 
dience must  respect  a  law,  and  authoritative  law  must  be  a  revelation 
from  God  ;  so  as  faith  respects  doctrine  and  promise,  that  doctrine  and 
those  promises,  if  faith  be  obligatory,  must  also  be  a  revelation  from 
God  ;    and  again,  as  we  collect  from  God's  displeasure   against,  or 
favour  to  certain  kinds  and  courses  of  moral  conduct,  that  man  was  un- 
der a  law  which  respected  morals  ;  so  also,  from  his  acceptance  of  one 
kind  of  sacrifice,  and  his  rejection  of  another,  in  the  case  of  Cain  and 
Abel,  it  will,  for  the  same  reason  follow,  that  man  was  under  a  law  of 
sacrifice,  and  more  especially  since  the  sacrifices  to  which  God,  in  after 
ages,  had  uniform  and  special  respect,  were  of  the  same  kind  as  that 
of  Abel, — animal,  vicarious,  and  expiatory.     In  morals,  we  must  sup- 
pose  either  traditional  or  personal  revelation,  or  else  give  to  them  a 
human  origin  or  invention,  and  in  worship  we  have  only  the  same  alter- 
native ;  but  to  give  to  primitive  morality  one  origin,  and  to  primitive 
worship  another ;  to  ascribe  one  to  God  and  another  to  man,  is  to  form 
a  very  incongruous  system,  and  to  involve  ourselves  in  great  difficulties. 
We  must  suppose  Adam  to  have  been  an  inspired  teacher  of  morals,  but 
to  have  left  worship  indifferent ;  or,  if  we  exclude  traditional  revelation, 
and   assume  that  every  man  was  taught  personally  by  God  in  those 
times,  that  God  made  revelations  of  his  law,  but  none  of  his  grace  ;  that 
he  revealed  the  standard  by  which  every  man  might  discover  his  sin  and 
danger,  but  that  he  made  no  discovery  of  the  means  by  which  a  man, 
painfully  sensible  of  his  guilt  and  liableness  to  the  punishment,  might 
approach  him  so  as  to  obtain  his  forgiveness  and  blessing. 

But  beside  this,  it  is  easy  to  collect,  from  the  sacred  record  in  the 
early  part  of  Genesis,  brief  as  it  is,  no  unimportant  information  of  the 
theology  which  existed  in  the  first  family  even  prior  to  the  sacrifice  of 
Abel.  That  man  was  under  law  is  certain  ;  that  death  was  the  penalty 
of  sin  is  equally  certain.  That  the  first  pair  sinned,  and  that  they  did 
not  die,  notwithstanding  the  law,  were  obvious  facts.  That  the  terms 
of  their  probation  were  changed,  and  that  they  were  not  shut  out  for 
ever  from  the  Divine  regard  were  circumstances  equally  clear ;  and  also 
that  they  had  means  of  approach  to  God,  means  of  obtaining  his  favour, 
means  of  sanctification,  means  of  obtaining  eternal  life,  must  also  be 
necessarily  inferred.  Claims  of  justice  and  yearnings  of  mercy  in  God 
jvere  seen  at  natural  and  legal  variance  and  opposition  ;  and  if  these 

2 


188  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

were  harmonized,  and  harmonized  they  were,  or  "  the  Lamb"  could 
not  be  said  to  have  been  slain  "  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  then 
must  we  suppose  that  there  was  some  indication  of  this  "  wisdom  of 
God"  revealed  for  a  practical  end,  the  necessity  of  which  must  always 
have  existed,  to  prevent  despair  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  presumptuous  dis- 
regard of  the  Divine  laws  on  the  other.  Though  in  figurative  language, 
or  symbolical  action,  the  manifestation  of  this  truth  might  be  made,  yet 
it  must  have  been  substantially  made,  or  it  could  not  have  been  prac- 
tical and  influential.  A  veiled  truth,  is  yet  a  truth,  though  veiled.  A 
shadow  indicates  the  outline  of  the  substance,  though  a  shadow ;  and 
the  sun,  though  shrouded  with  clouds,  fills  the  hemisphere  with  light, 
though  not  with  brightness,  for  day,  however  clouded,  is  far  different 
from  night.  We  cannot  conceive  of  a  theology  at  all  suited,  in  any 
practical  degree,  to  man's  fallen  state,  unless  it  comprehend  the  particu- 
lars we  have  given,  as  well  as  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  and  per- 
fections of  God  ;  and  if  we  find  an  express  indication  of  the  evangelical 
method  of  saving  man  by  the  interposition  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God, 
we  may  be  sure  that,  at  least  all  that  this  indication,  when  fairly  inter- 
preted, contains  was  known  to  Abel  before  he  offered  his  sacrifice  ;  and, 
both  from  the  brevity  of  the  narrative  and  the  office  of  Adam  as  the 
teacher  of  religion  to  his  children,  we  might  also  infer  that  this  indication 
was  matter  of  converse  and  explanation,  though  this  latter  consideration 
we  shall  not  insist  upon. 

It  is  in  the  first  promise  that  this  indication  is  to  be  found,  and  here 
we  shall  join  issue  with  Mr.  Davison  as  to  its  import,  and  the  extent  in 
which  its  meaning  must  have  been  understood  in  the  first  family. 

In  another  part  of  this  work  it  has  been  established,  that  this  pro- 
phetic promise  must  be  understood  symbolically,  and  that  it  contained 
the  first  manifestation  of  Messiah.  This,  indeed,  Mr.  Davison  acknow- 
ledges, but  denies  that  his  Divine  nature,  incarnation,  the  vicarious 
nature  of  his  sufferings,  and  their  atoning  efficacy,  could  be  inferred 
from  it.  As  his  remarks  contain  all  that  can  be  said  against  the  com- 
monly received  opinion  that  it  contained  an  intimation  of  all  these,  we 
may  quote  them.  They  contain  some  truth  and  much  error.  "  One 
object  of  faith  has  been  always  the  same  ;  that  object  the  Redeemer. 
The  original  promise  in  paradise  created  this  prospect  of  faith  to  be  the 
light  and  hope  of  the  world  for  ever.  But  that  original  promise  could 
not  be  interpreted  by  itself  into  the  several  parts  of  its  appointed  com- 
pletion. The  general  prediction  of  the  redeeming  seed,  <  It  shall  bruise 
thy  head  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel,'  though  adequate  in  the  mind 
of  God,  to  the  determinate  form  of  the  Christian  redemption,  could  not 
be  so  deduced  into  its  final  sense  by  the  mind  of  man.  And  since  there 
is  no  other  promise  or  prediction  extant,  applicable  to  the  faith  of  the 
first  ages,  and  explanatory  of  the  mode  of  the  Christian  redemption,  we 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  189 

can  justly  ascribe  no  other  knowledge  of  that  redemption  to  those  ages 
than  such  as  is  comprehended  in  the  proper  and  apparent  sense  of  the 
first  evangehcal  promise,  in  which  the  particular  notion  of  a  sacrifice  of 
expiation  or  atonement,  or,  indeed,  of  any  sacrifice  was  then  impossible 
to  be  discovered.  It  was  the  ofiice  of  later  revelation  to  fill  up  the 
design  of  this  promise,  and  revelation,  alone,  could  do  it.  For  the  de- 
ductions of  supernatural  truth  are  not  within  the  sphere  of  human 
intellect.  They  are  not  to  be  inferred  as  discoverable  conclusions  from 
one  primary  principle.  A  Redeemer  being  foretold,  his  Divine  nature, 
his  incarnation,  the  vicarious  nature  of  his  suflferings,  his  death,  and  the 
atoning  efficacy  of  it,  all  these,  though  real  connections  of  truth,  com- 
prehended with  the  original  promise,  in  the  scheme  of  the  Divine 
economy,  came  down  to  man,  like  new  streams  of  light,  by  these  sepa- 
rate  channels,  and  when  they  are  communicated  in  their  proper  form, 
then  we  know  them;  not  before."  {Inquiry^  (Sfc.) 

One  very  misleading  notion,  as  the  reader  will  perceive  from  what 
has  been  already  said,  lies  at  the  bottom  of  these  remarks.  It  is  assumed 
contrary  to  evidence,  that  the  book  of  Genesis  is  a  complete  history  of 
the  religious  opinions  of  the  patriarchs,  and  that  they  knew  nothing  on 
the  subject  of  theology  but  what  appears  on  the  face  of  the  account 
given  by  Moses,  who  touches  their  theological  system  but  incidentally. 
We  say  that  this  notion  is  unfounded,  not  only  because  we  must  neces- 
sarily  infer,  that  in  order  to  be  religious,  nay  even  moral  men,  they 
knew  much  more  than  the  rapid  Mosaic  sketch  includes ;  but  we  con. 
elude  this  fact  on  the  authority  of  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Thus,  for  instance,  we  have  seen  that  Abraham  had  a  revela- 
tion of  a  future  state,  and  that  Enoch  prophesied  of  the  "  coming  of  the 
Lord  to  judgment,  with  thousands  of  his  saints,"  though  neither  of  those 
revelations  are  recorded  by  Moses.  But  though  this  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  the  view  taken  of  the  primitive  theology,  by  Mr.  Davison, 
and  those  whose  opinions  he  has  undertaken  to  advocate,  is  far  too 
narrow,  and  that  his  conclusions,  from  such  premises,  must  be  unsatis- 
factory ;  it  is  not  on  this  ground  that  his  notion  of  the  general  and 
indefinite  nature  of  the  first  promise  shall  be  refuted.  Let  it  be  forgot- 
ten, for  a  moment,  that  Adam  was  naturally  the  religious  head  and 
religious  teacher  of  his  family ;  that  there  was  always  an  inspiration  in 
the  Church  of  God ;  that  the  general  promises  and  prophecies  were 
adapted  to  excite  inquiry ;  and  that  spiritual  men  would  always,  more 
or  less,  as  now,  be  led  into  the  mystery  veiled  under  the  letter  and 
symbol ;  yet,  taking  the  prophecy  simply  by  itself,  it  will  be  obvious 
from  a  careful  consideration  of  it,  that  the  view  just  given  does  not  do 
it  justice,  and  that  it  must  have  been  moie  amply  and  more  particularly 
understood  than  Mr.  Davison,  in  support  of  his  hypothesis,  would  repre- 
sent.    He  would  have  it  taken  so  generally  as  to  be  incapable  of  inter- 


190  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

pretation  "  into  the  several  parts  of  its  appointed  completion,"  and  to  be 
only  able  to  convey  some  one  general  notion  of  a  deliverer.  But  why 
are  we  to  confine  it  to  one  general  indistinct  impression  ?  Why,  though 
the  several  parts  of  this  prophetic  promise  should  be  allowed  to  be  com- 
paratively obscure,  and  their  impression  to  be  general,  should  it  not  be 
considered  in  the  parts  of  which  it  is  actually  composed?  and  why 
should  not  each  part  have  been  apprehended  separately  and  distinctively, 
though  yet  obscurely  ?  Of  several  parts  the  prophecy  is,  in  fact,  com- 
posed, and  to  these  parts,  as  well  as  to  the  general  impression  made  by 
the  whole,  must  the  attention  of  the  patriarchs  have  been  necessarily 
directed.  The  Divine  nature,  the  incarnation,  the  vicarious  nature  of 
Messiah's  sufferings,  and  their  atoning  efficacy,  we  are  told,  came  to 
man  "  by  separate  channels,"  and  were  not  in  any  way  to  be  appre- 
hended in  this  promise.  In  their  farther  and  full  development  we  grant 
this ;  but  let  us  see  whether  this  promise,  "  interpreted  even  by  itself," 
must  not  have  led  the  patriarchs  many  steps,  at  least,  toward  all  these 
doctrines. 

The  Divine  nature  of  the  promised  Redeemer,  we  are  told,  was  a 
separate  revelation ;  but,  surelj^,  this  promise  clearly  indicated  that  he 
was  to  be  of  a  superior  nature,  not  only  to  man,  but  to  that  fell  spirit 
whom  he  was  to  subdue,  and  whose  subtlety,  power,  and  malice,  our 
first  parents  had  so  lamentably  experienced ;  that  he  was  to  deprive 
him  of  that  dominion  which  he  had  acquired  over  man,  and  restore  the 
world  from  the  evil  effects  which  it  had  sustained  from  the  success  of 
his  temptations.  This  was  seen  in  the  promise  by  an  easy  and  natural 
interpretation,  and  the  step  from  this  to  the  absolute  Divinity  of  this 
Restorer,  or,  at  least,  to  an  apprehension  of  the  probability  of  it,  was 
certainly  not  a  large  and  difficult  one.  The  blessings,  too,  which  he 
was  to  procure  for  sinful  man  were  of  such  a  nature  as  to  give  the  most 
exalted  ideas  of  the  being  who  could  bring  them  back  to  man  when  for- 
feited by  a  most  righteous  sentence.  They  were  spiritual  blessings. 
For,  if  our  first  parents  were  to  derive  any  consolation  or  benefit  from 
the  promise  in  this  life ;  if  it  was  to  turn  their  repentance  to  any 
account ;  or  to  give  them  any  hope  and  confidence  toward  God,  whom 
they  had  offended,  to  be  assured  that  the  head  of  the  serpent  should  be 
bruised,  then  their  attention  must  have  been  turned  to  spiritual  bless- 
ings as  the  result  of  this,  since  in  this  life  they  neither  obtained  exemp- 
tion from  labour,  suffering,  or  death.  Now  those  who  adopt  the  prin- 
ciple of  Mr.  Davison,  and  will  allow  of  no  revelations  in  those  ages 
being  assumed  but  those  which  are  rect)rded  by  Moses,  are  bound  to 
allow  that  there  was  in  the  promise  something  which  was  intended  to 
give  religious  hope  and  comfort  to  the  first  pair,  and  to  their  immediate 
posterity,  or  they  cannot  account  for  the  existence  of  religious  worship 
and  the  hope  which  it  implies,  since  there  is  no  other  recorded  promise 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES^  191 

of  the  same  antiquity,  and  they  will  allow  hothing  to  be  assumed  be- 
side what  is  written.  If,  then,  this  first  promise  ministered  to  the 
religious  hope,  faith,  and  comfort  of  our  first  parents,  it  turned  that 
hope  to  the  spiritual  blessings  which  they  had  lost,  namely,  the  favour 
of  God  and  eternal  life,  and  to  these  as  coming  to  them  through  the 
bruising  of  the  head  of  the  serpent  by  the  seed  of  the  icoman.  The  same 
conclusion  we  must  come  to,  if  we  adopt  what  we  appear  compelled  to 
do,  on  apostolic  authority,  the  doctrine  of  collateral  expository  revela- 
tions, for  these  would  throw  hght  upon  the  figurative  and  symboUc 
terms  of  the  promise,  and  show  much  of  its  real  and  spiritual  import. 
In  either  case  we  must  resort  to  this  promise  as  the  source  of  that  hope 
of  pardon  and  spiritual  victory,  which,  from  the  time  it  was  given,  be- 
came an  inmate  in  the  bosoms  of  faithful  men,  and  animated  them  in 
their  moral  conflicts.  Whoever,  then,  the  seed  of  the  woman  might 
be,  he  was,  in  this  very  promise,  exhibited  as  the  Restorer  of  the  all- 
important  spiritual  blessings  of  the  Divine  favour,  power  over  Satan, 
and  eternal  life.  Thus  their  notions  of  his  character,  and,  indeed,  of  his 
superior  nature,  would  be  still  farther  advanced. 

But  the  bruising  of  the  head  of  Satan,  which  could  only  be  under- 
stood of  a  fatal  blow  to  be  inflicted  on  the  power  which  he  had  acquired 
over  man,  and  which  had  displayed  itself  in  the  introduction  of  suflTer- 
ing  and  death,  in  the  evil  disposhions  of  men  toward  each  other,  and  all 
the  miseries  which  so  soon  sprung  up  in  society,  directed  their  hope 
also  to  future  blessings  as  to  themselves  and  their  posterity,  which  bless- 
ings could  be  no  less  than  deliverance  from  the  evils  which  the  subtlety 
of  the  serpent  had  introduced,  namely,  as  to  them,  deliverance  from 
affliction  and  death  ;  and,  as  to  society,  a  return  to  primeval  purity. 
Whether  they  looked  for  this  deliverance  by  a  renovation  of  the  present 
world)  or  by  the  introduction  of  the  pious  into  another,  we  cannot  say. 
If  our  first  parents  were,  for  some  time,  uncertain  as  to  this  point,  the 
antediluvian  family  could  not  long  remain  so,  since  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life  was  known  to  Enoch,  and,  if  not  before,  was  revealed  to 
others  by  the  fact  of  his  translation,  and  he  was  but  "  the  seventh  from 
Adam."  But  whether  by  the  renovation  of  the  earth,  and  the  restora- 
tion of  the  body  of  man  to  immortality  in  this  world,  or  by  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  and  the  glorification  of  the  soul  in  a  future  state, 
still  was  such  a  restoration  implied  in  the  promise,  and  the  person  by 
whom  death  was  to  be  conquered  and  sin  expelled  from  man's  heart, 
and  immortality  and  bliss  restored,  was  still  "  the  seed  of  the  woman." 
That  the  Divinity  of  a  being  capable  of  bestowing  such  favours,  was, 
at  least,  indicated  in  the  first  promise,  is  not,  therefore,  too  strong  a 
conclusion ;  and  though  new  communications  of  this  truth,  coming 
through  "  separate  channels,"  illustrated  the  text  of  this  revelation,  yet 
in  the  channel  of  the  original  promise,  through  which  came  the  first 


192  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PAllT 

hope  of  '*^a  Redeemer,"  we  see  those  concomitant  circumstances  from 
which  it  could  not  but  be  inferred,  that  he  was,  at  least,  super-human 
and  super 'angelic.  He  was  the  seed  of  the  woman,  and  yet  superior  to 
"  the  archangel  fallen" — and  he  was  seen  in  that  promise,  as  he  is  seen 
now,  though  with  greater  detail  of  circumstance,  as  the  great  medium 
of  pardon,  moral  renovation,  immortahty,  and  eternal  life. 

It  is  equally  untenable  to  say,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation 
was  not  to  be  deduced  from  the  promise  before  us,  but  that  this  also 
came  by  "  a  separate  channel."  The  farther  revelation  of  this  truth 
opened  for  itself  various  courses,  but  it  is  there  also.  The  being  there 
spoken  of  as  superior  to  the  serpent,  and  as  so  superior  to  man,  even  m 
his  innocence  and  perfection,  that  he  should  subdue  the  power  which 
had  subdued  Adam,  and  recover  what  Adam  lost,  was,  nevertheless, 
to  be  "  the  seed  of  the  woman :"  to  be  her  offspring  even  in  her  fallen 
state ;  so  that  in  truth  so  much  of  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  was  to 
be  deduced  from  the  promise,  that  this  "  seed  of  the  woman"  was  at 
once  to  be  man,  and  more  than  man.  And  then  for  the  doctrine  of  his 
"  vicarious  sufferings,"  and  their  efficacy,  why  should  we  be  compelled 
wholly  to  look  for  the  first  indication  of  this  to  revelations  coming  to 
man  through  separate  and  later  channels  ?  These,  we  again  thankfully 
acknowledge,  have  been  abundantly  opened  ;  but,  if  we  allow  Adam  and 
the  patriarchs  to  have  been  men  of  but  common  powers  of  reflection, 
(though  to  them  a  very  vigorous  and  even  cultivated  intellect  might  in 
justice  be  conceded,)  then  the  first  indication  of  this  truth  also  must 
have  been  seen  in  the  first  promise.  It  was  comparatively  dim  and 
obscure  we  grant ;  but  there  was  a  substantive  manifestation  of  it ;  and, 
to  say  nothing  of  collateral  instruction  from  God  himself,  it  was  appre- 
hended in  the  first  promise,  not  by  difficult  and  distant,  but  by  near  and 
natural  inference,  that  the  restoration  of  man  should  be  efiected  by  the 
sufferings  of  the  Restorer.  For  what  could  be  understood  by  the  bruis- 
ing  of  the  heel  of  the  seed  of  the  woman  in  the  conflict  which  was  to 
spring  from  the  enmity  put  between  that  seed,  some  one  distinguished 
person  so  called,  and  the  serpent,  but  a  temporary  injury  and  suffering  ? 
and  why  should  he  sustain  the  injury  rather  than  any  other  descendant 
of  the  woman,  except  that  the  conflict,  in  which  he  engaged,  was  in  his 
character  of  Redeemer,  coming  forth  to  the  struggle  for  man's  sake, 
and  for  man's  rescue  ?  As  he  was  a  being  superior  to  man,  and  yet 
man,  then  is  there  an  indication  of  his  incarnation ;  if  of  his  incarna- 
tion, then  it  was  indicated  also  that  his  sufferings  were  voluntary,  for  to 
Suffer  could  not  spring  from  his  weakness  who  was  able  to  subdue,  but 
from  the  will  of  him  who  chose,  in  this  way,  to  subdue  the  grand 
enemy.  His  suffering,  then,  was  for  man,  and  it  was  voluntary  suffer- 
ing for  man  ;  and  if  voluntary,  then  was  there  a  connection  between 
this  his  temporary  voluntary  suffering  and  the  bruising  of  the  serpent's 
2 


SECOXD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  193 

head,  that  is,  his  conquest  over  Satan,  and  the  rescue  of  man  from  hi^ 
dominion  ;  in  other  words,  there  was  an  efficacy  in  his  sufferings  which 
connected  themselves,  not  by  accident,  but  by  appointmejit  and  institu-^ 
Hon,  with  man's  salvation  from  those  evils,  spiritual  and  corporal,  which 
had  been  induced  by  the  power  and  malice  of  the  devil. 

Interpreted  then  by  itself,  there  is  much  more  in  this  promise  than 
Mr.  Davison  has  discovered  in  it.  It  exhibited  to  man  the  means  of  his 
salvation ;  this  was  to  be  effected  by  the  interposition  of  a  being  of  a 
superior  nature,  made  "  the  seed  of  the  woman ;"  his  office  was  to  de- 
stroy the  works  of  the  devil ;  he  exposed  himself  to  voluntary  sufferings 
for  this  end ;  these  sufferings  had  a  direct  efficacy  and  connection  with 
man's  deliverance  from  the  power  of  Satan,  and,  therefore,  we  may  add, 
with  the  justice  of  God,  since  Satan  could  have  no  power  over  man  but 
by  God's  permission,  which  permission  was  a  part  of  man's  righteous 
punishment.  This  last  consideration  is  of  great  importance.  For  as 
the  patriarchs,  with  their  lofty  and  clear  notions  of  the  majesty  of  the 
Divine  being,  could  not  suppose  that  Satan  had  obtained  any  victory 
over  him,  or  that  the  conffict  between  the  Redeemer  and  him  was  to  be 
one  o?  power  merely,  since  they  must  have  known  that  he  might  at  any 
time  have  been  expelled  from  his  usurped  dominion  by  the  fiat  of  the 
Almighty ;  so  the  dominion  of  Satan  must  have  been  regarded  by  them 
in  the  light  of  a  judicial  permission  for  the  punishment  of  sin,  and  ex- 
hibiting the  awful  justice  and  sanctity  of  the  law  of  God.  It  would, 
therefore,  necessarily  follow,  in  their  reasonings  on  this  subject,  that  the 
sufferings  of  the  seed  of  the  woman,  expressed  by  the  bruising  of  his 
heel,  as  they  were  demonstrated  to  be  voluntary  on  his  part  by  the 
superior  greatness  of  his  nature,  and  were  expressly  appointed  on  the 
part  of  God,  as  appears  from  the  very  terms  of  the  first  promise,  were 
connected  with  this  exercise  of  punitive  justice,  and  were  designed  to 
remove  it.  Here,  then,  the  notion  of  satisfaction  and  atonement  breaks 
in,  and  a  basis  was  laid  for  the  rite  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  and  the  con- 
formity of  that  rite  to  the  doctrine  of  the  first  promise  is  at  once  seen ; 
it  thus  became  a  visible  expression  of  the  faith  of  the  fathers  in  this  ap- 
pointed method  of  man's  deliverance. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  exposition  of  the  import  of  the  first  promise 
which  is  so  suggested  by  what  we  now  know  on  tliese  important  sub- 
jects, as  to  be  supposed  out  of  the  reach  of  the  spiritually  minded  and 
reflecting  part  of  the  first  family  ;  and  if  so,  then  this  promise  may  be 
considered  as  the  basis  of  Abel's  faith,  and  its  doctrine  as  visibly  em- 
bodied in  what  was  peculiar  in  Abel's  offering.  Even  if  we  were  not 
able  to  refer  to  a  promise  sufficiently  definite  to  support  such  an  ex- 
pression of  faith,  the  former  view  we  have  taken  would  still  hold  good, 
that  all  faith  necessarily  supposes  a  previous  revelation ;  and  if  faith 
does,  by  its  acts,  refer  to  a  particular  revelation,  then  an  actual  previous 

Vol.  II.  13 


194  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

revelation  of  some  particular  doctrine,  object,  or  view,  must  necessarily 
be  supposed,  or  it  is  not  faith,  but  fancy  and  presumption. 

It  is  vainly  urged  against  this,  by  Mr.  Davison,  that  the  faith  spoken 
of  by  St.  Paul  in  Hebrews  xi,  had  for  its  simple  and  general  object,  that 
"  God  is  the  re  warder  of  such  as  diligently  seek  him."  For,  though  this 
is  supposed  as  the  ground  of  every  act  of  faith,  yet  the  special  acts  re- 
corded have  each  their  special  object.  Even,  if  it  were  not  so,  this 
general  principle  itself  is  not  to  be  so  generally  and  indefinitely  inter- 
preted, as  Mr.  Davison  would  have  it,  who  tells  us  that  the  first  creed 
was  "  that  God  is  a  rewarder,"  and  that  the  other  articles  were  given 
by  successive  and  distant  revelations.  This  is  a  partial  and  delusive 
statement ;  for,  from  this  very  text,  which  surely  Mr.  Davison  had  no 
right  to  curtail,  another  article  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  first  creed, 
namely,  that  God  is  not  merely  a  rewarder,  but  a  rewarder  of  those 
"  that  diligently  seek  liim.^^  Even  with  respect  to  the  first,  as  Mr.  Law 
justly  observes,  "  God  cannot  be  considered  as  a  rewarder  of  mankind 
in  any  other  sense  than  as  he  is  afulfiller  of  his  promises  made  to  man- 
kind in  the  covenant  of  Messiah.  For  God  could  not  give,  nor  man 
receive,  any  rewards  or  blessings,  but  in  and  through  one  Mediator, 
Christ  Jesus."  [Confutation  of  Warhurton.)  But  we  may  add,  that  the 
rewarding  mentioned  by  the  apostle  is  connected  with  "  seeking'^  him. 
Only  to  such  he  was  or  is  a  reward  "  who  diligently  seek  him,"  and  this 
seeking  or  worshipping  God  supposes  some  appointed  instituted  method 
of  approaching  him,  and  which,  therefore,  must  be  regarded  by  an  ac- 
ceptable faith,  and  recognized  by  its  external  acts.  This  is  not  mere 
inference,  for  both  Cain  and  Abel  believed  that  "  God  is,  and  that  he  is 
a  rewarder,"  and  they  both  sought  him  ;  but  they  sought  him  differently, 
and  to  Abel  only  and  to  his  offering,  that  is,  to  his  mode  of  "  seeking" 
God,  his  Maker  had  respect.  But  farther,  the  whole  chapter  shows 
that,  beside  this  general  principle,  the  acts  of  faith  there  recorded  reposed 
on  antecedent  revelations,  either  general  or  specific,  which  accorded 
with  them.  Noah's  faith  respected  the  promise  of  his  preservation  in 
the  ark ;  Abraham's,  that  he  should  have  a  son,  that  his  seed  should 
possess  the  earthly  Canaan,  and  he  himself  the  heavenly  Canaan  ; 
Moses's  faith,  in  the  first  instance  recorded  of  it,  respected  the  promises 
of  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  to  those  who  should  renounce  the 
"  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season,"  and  in  the  second,  the  promise  of  God 
to  deliver  Israel,  and  to  fulfil  the  promise  made  to  Abraham ;  and  so 
also  in  the  other  instances  given,  the  faith  constantly  respected  some 
particular  revelation  from  God.  From  all  this,  it  will  follow,  that  the 
apostle,  in  this  chapter,  did  not  intend  to  say  that  the  object  of  faith,  in 
any  age  whatever,  was  exclusively,  that  God  is  a  rewarder  of  them 
who  seek  him,  but  that  the  elders  who  obtained  the  "  good  report"  had 
faith  in  the  word  and  promises  of  God,  and  for  that  had  been  honoured 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  195 

and  rewarded.  He  lays  down  tv/o  principles,  it  is  true,  which  must  be 
assumed  before  any  special  act  of  faith  can  be  exercised — "  That  God 
is,"  or  there  could  be  no  object  of  trust ;  and  that  he  rewards  them  that 
"  diligently  seek  him,"  or  there  could  be  no  motive  to  prayer,  or  to  ask 
his  interposition  in  any  case ;  but  these  principles  being  admitted,  then 
every  word  arid  promise  of  God  becomes  an  object  of  faith  to  good  men, 
who  derive  from  this  habit  of  trusting  in  God,  on  the  authority  of  his 
own  engagements,  that  courage  and  constancy  by  which  they  are  dis- 
tinguished, and  are  crowned  with  those  rewards  which  he  has  always 
attached  to  faith. 

And  here,  also,  we  may  observe,  that  the  notion  stated  above,  that  the 
mere  belief  by  these  ancient  patriarchs  that  God  is,  and  "  that  he  is  a 
rewarder,"  could  not  be  at  all  apposite  to  the  purpose  for  which  this 
recital  of  the  faith  of  the  elders  was  addressed  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
object  of  it  was  clearly  to  induce  the  Jews  who  believed,  FxOt  "  to  cast 
away  their  confidence,''^  their  fahh  in  Christ.  But  what  adaptation  to 
this  end  can  we  discern  in  the  dry  statement  that  Abel  and  Enoch  be- 
lieved that  God  is,  and  that  he  is  "  a  rewarder  ?"  Had  the  Hebrews 
renounced  Christ,  and  turned  Jews  again,  they  would  still  have  believed 
these  two  points  of  doctrine.  There  are  but  two  views  of  this  recital 
of  the  instances  of  ancient  faith  which  can  harmonize  it  with  the  apostle's 
argument  and  design.  The  first  is  to  consider  him  as  adducing  this  list 
of  worthies  as  examples  of  a  steady  faith  in  all  that  God  had  then  revealed 
to  man,  and  of  the  happy  effects  which  followed.  The  connection  of 
this  with  his  argument  will  then  be  obvious  ;  for,  by  these  examples,  he 
urges  the  Hebrews  to  persevere  in  believing  all  that  God  had,  "  in  these 
last  days,"  revealed  of  his  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  in  disregard  of  the  dangers 
and  persecutions  to  which  they  were  exposed  on  that  account ;  because 
thus  they  would  shar6  in  the  "  good  report"  and  in  the  rewards  of  the 
"elders"  of  their  own  Church,  and  imitate  the  honourable  piety  of  their 
ancestry.  This  is  enough  for  our  argument.  But  there  is  a  second 
view,  not  to  be  slightly  passed  over,  which  is,  that  these  instances  of 
ancient  faith  are  adduced  by  the  apostle  to  prove  that  all  the  "  elders" 
of  the  patriarchal  and  Jewish  Churches  had  faith  in  the  Cheist  to 
COME,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Hebrews  would  be  the  imitators  of  their 
faith  and  the  partakers  of  its  rewards  in  "  holding  fast  their  confidence," 
their  faith  in  the  same  Christ  who  had  already  come,  and  whom  they 
had  received  as  such.  Nor  is  even  this  stronger  view  difficult  to  be 
made  out ;  for,  though  the  difl?erent  acts  and  exercises  of  faith  ascribed 
to  them  have  respect  to  different  promises  and  revelations,  some  spiritual, 
some  temporal,  and  some  mixed,  yet  may  we  trace  in  all  of  them  a  re- 
spect, more  or  less  immediate,  to  the  leading  object  of  all  faith,  the  Mes- 
siah himself.  We  have  seen  that  Abel's  faith  had  respect  to  the  method 
of  man's  justification,  through  the  sufferings  of  the  seed  of  the  woman, 

2 


196  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

As  that  seed  was  appointed  to  remedy  the  evils  brought  into  the  world 
by  the  serpent,  it  is  clear  that  eternal  hfe  could  only  be  expected  with 
reference  to  him,  and  Enoch's  lofty  faith  in  a  future  heavenly  state 
consequently  looked  to  him  then,  like  ours  now,  as  "the  author  of  eter- 
nal salvation  to  them  that  obey  him," — a  conclusion,  as  to  this  patriarch, 
which  is  rendered  stronger  by  his  prophecy  of  Christ's  coming  to  judg- 
ment "  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints."  Noah's  faith  had  immediate 
respect  to  the  promise  of  God  to  preserve  him  in  the  ark  ;  but  it  cannot 
be  disconnected  from  his  faith  in  the  first  promise  and  other  revelations 
of  the  bruising  of  the  head  of  the  serpent  by  Messiah,  a  promise  which 
had  not  been  accomplished,  and  which,  if  he  believed  God  to  be  faithful, 
he  must  have  concluded  could  not  fall  to  the  ground,  and  that  his  pre- 
servation, in  order  to  prevent  the  human  race  from  extinction,  and  to 
bring  in  the  seed  of  the  woman,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  was  connected 
with  it.  His  faith  in  God,  as  his  deliverer,  was  bound  up,  therefore,  we 
may  almost  say  necessarily,  with  his  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  the  one 
was  the  evidence  of  the  other ;  for  which  reason,  principally,  it  probably 
was,  that  the  apostle  says  "  that  he  became  heir  of  the  righteousness 
which  is  by  faith."  All  the  acts  of  Abraham's  faith  had  respect,  imme- 
diately or  ultimately,  to  the  promised  seed.  The  possession  of  Canaan 
by  his  posterity,  from  whom  the  MeSvsiah  was^  to  spring, — th«  enjoyment 
of  eternal  life  for  himself,  which  was  the  final  effect  of  his  justification 
by  faith  in  the  seed  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed, — the  trans- 
action as  to  Isaac,  when  he  believed  tha.t  God  would  raise  him  from  the 
dead,  because  he  believed  that  the  promise  could  not  fail  which  had 
declared  that  the  Messiah  should  spring  from  Isaac, — "  In  Isaac  shall 
thy  seed  be  called."  The  faith  of  Isaac,  in  blessing,  or  prophesying  of 
the  condition  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  had  still  reference  to  the  Messiah,  who 
was  to  descend  from  Jacob,  not  Esau,  and  the  lot  of  whose  posterity 
was  regulated  accordingly.  The  same  observation  may  be  made  as  to 
Jacob  blessing  the  sons  of  Joseph,  and  Joseph's  making  mention  of  the 
departure  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  giving  commandment  concern- 
ing his  bones :  both  related  to  the  settlement  of  the  tribes  in  Canaan, 
and  both  were  complicated  with  the  relation  of  that  event  to,  and  the 
peculiarity  stamped  upon  Israel,  by  the  expected  coming  of  Messias. 
When  Moses,  by  faith,  full  of  the  hopes  of  immortality,  renounced  the 
temptations  of  the  Egyptian  court,  the  reproach  he  endured  is  called 
"  the  reproach  of  Christ,"  the  apostle  thus  plainly  intimating,  that  it  was 
through  the  expected  Messiah  that  he  looked  for  the  hope  of  eternal 
life,  "the  recompense  of  the  reward."  His  faith,  as  leader  of  the  hosts 
of  Israel,  was  connected  with  the  promises  of  God  to  give  them  posses- 
sion of  the  land  of  Canaan  as  their  patrimony,  as  that  was  with  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Messiah  among  them  "  in  the  fulness  of  time."  The  faith 
of  Rahab  may  appear  more  remotely  connected  with  the  promise  of- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  197 

Messiah ;  but  the  connection  may  still  be  traced.  She  believed  in  the 
God  of  Israel  as  the  true  God ;  but  by  entertaining  and  preserving  the 
spies,  she  also  intimated  her  faith  in  the  promise  of  God  to  give  the  de- 
scendants  of  Abraham  the  land  of  Canaan  for  their  inheritance,  which 
design  she  could  only  know  from  the  promises  made  to  Abraham,  either 
traditionally  from  him,  who  had  himself  long  resided  in  Canaan,  or  by 
information  from  the  spies  ;  and  if  she  had  this  knowledge  in  either  way, 
it  is  not  difficult  to  suppose  her  informed,  also,  as  to  the-  seed  promised 
to  Abraham,  in  which  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed. 
I  incline  to  think,  that  the  faith  of  Rahab  had  respect  not  so  much  to 
any  information  she  received  from  the  spies,  as  to  traditions  derived  from 
Abraham.  Whether  she  stood,  by  her  descent,  in  any  near  relation  to 
those  with  whom  Abraham  had  more  immediately  conversed,  or  whether 
Abraham  had  very  publicly  testified  in  Canaan  God's  design  to  establish 
his  posterity  there,  and  to  raise  up  from  among  them  the  holy  seed,  the 
Messiah,  I  will  not  pretend  to  determine ;  but  there  are  two  reasons 
which,  at  least,  make  it  probable  that  Abraham  gave  a  public  testimony 
to  religious  truth  during  his  residence  in  Canaan.  The  first  is,  his  resi- 
dence in  tents ;  thereby  "  declaring  plainly,^''  says  the  Apostle  Paul, 
"  that  he  sought  a  better  country,  even  a  heavenly  ;"  that  is,  declaring 
it  to  the  Canaanites,  or  the  action  would  have  had  no  meaning,  declaring 
this  doctrine  to  the  people  of  his  own  age.  The  second  is,  that  the 
same  apostle  gives  it  as  a  reason  for  the  preservation  of  Rahab,  that 
she  believed,  while  those  "  that  believed  not"  perished,  meaning  plainly 
the  rest  of  the  Canaanites.  Now,  what  were  they  to  believe,  and  why 
were  they  guilty  for  not  believing  ?  The  only  rational  answer  to  be  given 
is,  that  they  had  had  the  means  of  knowing  the  designs  of  God,  as  to 
Abraham  and  his  posterity,  from  whom  the  promised  Messiah  was  to 
spring ;  and  that,  not  crediting  the  testimony  given  first  by  Abraham, 
and  which  was  afterward  confirmed  by  the  wonders  of  Egypt,  but  setting 
themselves  against  the  designs  of  God,  they  "  perished"  judicially,  while 
Rahab,  on  account  of  her  faith  in  these  revelations,  was  preserved. 

With  respect  to  "  Gideon,  and  Barak,  and  Samson,  and  Jephthah, 
and  Daniel,  and  Samuel,"  they  were  judges,  kings,  and  conquerors. 
They  had  a  lofty  faith  in  the  special  promises  of  success,  which  God 
was  pleased  to  make  to  them ;  but  that  faith,  also,  sprung  from,  and 
was  supported  by,  the  special  relation  in  which  their  nation  stood  to 
Jehovah ;  they  were  the  seed  of  Abraham  ;  they  held  their  land  by  the 
grant  of  the  Most  High ;  they  were  all  taught  to  look  for  the  rising  of 
the  mighty  prince  Messiah  among  them  ;  and  their  faith  in  special  pro- 
mises of  success,  could  not  but  have  respect  to  all  these  covenant  en- 
gagements of  God  with  their  people,  and  may  be  considered  as  in  no 
small  degree  grounded  upon  them,  and,  in  its  special  acts,  as  an  evi- 
dence that  they  had  this  faith  in  the  deeper  and  more  comprehensive 


19.8  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

promises.  Certain  it  is,  that  one  of  them  mentioned  in  this  list  of  war- 
riors, David,  does,  in  the  very  songs  in  which  he  celebrates  his  victories, 
almost  constantly  blend  them  with  the  conquests  of  Messiah ;  which  is 
itself  a  marked  and  eminent  proof  of  the  connection  which  was  con- 
stantly  kept  up  in  the  minds  of  the  pious  governors  of  Israel  between 
the  political  fortunes  of  their  nation  and  the  promises  which  respected 
the  seed  of  Abraham.  As  to  the  prophets,  also  mentioned  by  the  apostle, 
they  were  constantly  made  the  channels  of  new  revelations  as  to  the 
Messiah,  and  their  faith,  therefore,  had  an  immediate  reference  to  him ; 
and  for  the  sufferers  in  the  cause  of  religious  truth,  so  honourably 
recorded,  the  martyrs  of  the  Old  Testament  who  had  "  trial  of  cruel 
mockings  and  scourgings,  were  stoned,  sawn  asunder,"  &;c,  they  are  all 
represented  as  supported  by  their  hope  of  immortality  and  a  resurrec- 
tion ;  blessings  which,  from  the  first,  were  acknowledged  to  come  to 
man  only  through  the  appointed  Redeemer.  Thus  the  faith  of  all  had 
respect  to  Christ,  either  more  directly  or  remotely;  and,  if  farther  proof 
were  necessary,  all  that  has  been  said  is  crowned  by  the  concluding 
sentence  of  the  apostle — "  and  these  all  having  obtained  a  good  report, 
through  faith,  received  not  the  promise,  God  having  provided  some  bet- 
ter thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made  perfect;" 
which  "better  thing,"  whether  it  mean  the  personal  appearance  of 
Messiah,  or  their  reception  into  heaven  by  a  resurrection,  which  God 
determined  should  not  take  place  as  to  the  Church  separately,  but  in  a 
body,  proves  that  not  only  did  their  faith  look  hack  to  special  promises 
of  succour,  deliverance,  and  other  blessings  ;  but  was  constantly  looking 
forward  to  Christ,  and  to  the  blessings  of  a  resurrection  and  eternal  life, 
which  he  was  to  bestow.  This,  he  affirms,  too,  was  the  case  with  all 
whom  he  had  mentioned — "  these  all  died  in  the  faith ;"  but  in  what 
faith  did  they  die  ?  not  the  faith  they  had  in  the  promises  of  the  various 
deliverances  mentioned  in  the  chapter ;  those  special  acts  of  faith  were 
past,  and  the  special  promises  to  which  they  were  directed  were  ob- 
tained  long  before  death :  they  died  in  the  faith  of  unaccomplished 
promises — the  appearance  of  Messiah,  and  the  obtaining  of  eternal  life 
through  him. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  prove,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Abel  was  expia- 
tory, and  that  it  conformed,  as  an  act  of  faith,  to  some  anterior  revela- 
tion. If  that  revelation  were  only  that  which  is  recorded  in  the  first 
promise,  on  which  some  remarks  have  been  offered,  Abel's  faith  ac- 
corded with  its  general  indication  of  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  suffering ; 
but  his  visibly  representing  his  faith  in  these  doctrines,  by  an  animal 
sacrifice,  is  not  to  be  resolved  into  the  invention  and  device  of  Abel, 
though  he  himself  should  be  assumed  to  have  been  the  first  to  adopt 
this  rite,  unless  we  suppose  him  to  have  been  under  special  direction. 
It  is  very  true,  and  a  point  not  to  be  at  any  time  lost  sight  of,  that  the 
2  / 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  199 

open  and  marked  accepteince  of  Abel's  sacrifice  was  a  Divine  confirma- 
tion of  the  mode  of  approaching  him  by  animal  sacrifice  ;  and  seems  to 
have  been  intended  as  instructive  and  admonitory  to  the  world,  and  to 
have  invested  this  mode  of  worship  with  a  renewed  and  more  signal 
stamp  of  Divine  appointment  than  heretofore.  That  in  this  light  it  was 
considered  by  the  apostle,  appears  plainly  deducible  from  his  words, 
"  and  by  it,  (his  sacrifice,)  he  being  dead,  yet  speaketh."  By  words 
more  emphatic  he  could  not  have  marked  the  importance  of  that  act,  as 
an  act  of  pubhc  and  sanctioned  instruction.  Abel  "  spoke"  to  all  suc- 
ceeding ages,  and  continues  to  speak,  not  by  his  personal  righteousness, 
not  by  any  other  circumstance  whatever,  but  by  his  sacrifice,  (for  with 
Svffiag  understood,  must  auT7]j  agree  ;)  and  in  no  way  could  he,  except 
by  his  sacrifice  as  distinct  from  that  of  Cain,  speak  to  future  ages,  and 
as  that  sacrifice  taught  how  sinful  guilty  men  were  to  approach  God, 
and  was  a  declaration  of  the  necessity  of  atonement  for  their  sins.  We 
should  think  this  a  sufficient  answer  to  all  who  complain  of  the  want  of 
an  express  indication  of  the  Divine  appointment  of  animal  expiatory 
sacrifice  in  the  first  family.  The  indication  called  for  is  here  express, 
since  this  kind  of  sacrifice  was  accepted,  and  an  offering,  not  animal 
and  not  expiatory,  was  as  publicly  rejected ;  and  since,  also,  Abel,  as 
we  may  conclude  from  the  apostle's  emphatic  words,  did  not  act  in  this 
affair  merely  as  a  private  man ;  but  as  one  who  was,  by  his  acts,  to 
instruct  and  influence  others — "  by  it  he,  being  dead,  yet,"  even  to  this 
day,  "  speaketh." 

Decidedly,  however,  as  this  circumstance  marked  out  a  sanctioned 
method  of  approaching  God,  we  think  that  Abel  rather  conformed  to  a 
previously  appointed  sacrificial  institution  than  then,  for  the  first  time, 
offered  an  animal  and  expiatory  sacrifice,  though  it  should  be  supposed 
to  be  under  a  Divine  direction.  For  Cain  could  not  have  been  so 
blamable  had  he  not  violated  some  rule,  some  instituted  practice,  as  to 
the  mode  of  worship  ;  and,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  the  clothing  of 
our  first  parents  with  the  skins  of  beasts,  cannot  so  well  be  accounted 
for  as  by  supposing  those  skins  to  have  been  taken  from  animals  offered 
in  sacrifice. 

But  whether  this  typical  method  of  representing  the  future  atonement 
first  took  place  with  Abel,  or  previously  with  Adam,  a  Divine  origin 
must  be  assigned  to  it.  The  proof  of  this  has  been  greatly  anticipated 
in  the  above  observations,  which  have  been  designed  to  establish  the 
expiatory  character  of  Abel's  ofl^ering ;  but  a  few  additional  remarks  on 
this  subject  may  not  be  useless. 

The  human  invention  of  primitive  animal  sacrifice  is  a  point  given  up 
by  Mr.  Davison,  and  other  writers  on  the  same  side,  if  such  sacrifices 
can  be  proved  expiatory.  The  humtm  invention  of  eucharistic  offerings 
they  can  conceive ;  and  Mr.  Davison  thinks  he  can  find  a  natural  ex^ 

2 


200  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

planation  of  the  practice  of  offering  animal  sacrifice,  if  considered  as  a 
confession  of  guilt ;  but  for  "  that  condition  of  animal  sacrifice,  its  ex- 
piatory atoning  power,"  he  observes,  "I  confess  myself  unable  to  compre- 
hend how  it  can  ever  be  grounded  on  the  principles  of  reason,  or  deduced 
from  the  light  of  nature.  There  exists  no  discernible  connection  between 
the  one  and  the  other.  On  the  contrary,  nature  has  nothing  to  say  for 
such  an  expiatory  power,  and  reason  every  thing  against  it.  For  that 
the  life  of  a  brute  creature  should  ransom  the  life  of  a  man ;  that  its 
blood  should  have  any  virtue  to  wash  away  his  sin,  or  purify  his  con- 
science, or  redeem  his  penalty  ;  or  that  the  involuntary  sufferings  of  a 
being,  itself  unconscious  and  irrational,  should  have  a  moral  efficacy  to 
his  benefit  or  pardon,  or  be  able  to  restore  him  y/ith  God,  these  are 
things  repugnant  to  the  sense  of  reason,  incapable  of  being  brought  into 
the  scale  of  the  first  ideas  of  nature,  and  contradictory  to  all  genuine 
religion,  natural  and  revealed.  For  as  to  the  remission  of  sin,  it  is 
plainly  altogether  within  the  prerogative  of  God,  an  act  of  his  mere 
mercy ;  and  since  it  is  so^  every  thing  relating  to  the  conveyance  and 
the  sanctiony  the  profession,  and  the  security  of  it,  can  spring  only  from 
his  appointment." 

But  this  being  allowed,  and  nothing  can  be  more  obvious,  then  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  patriarchal  sacrifices,  if  proved  to  be  expiatory,  as  the 
means  of  removing  wrath  from  offenders,  and  of  conveying  and  sanc- 
tioning pardon,  must  be  allowed  to  have  had  Divine  institution,  and  the 
notion  of  their  being  of  human  device,  must,  in  consequence,  be  given 
up.  In  proof  of  this,  we  have  geen  that  Abel's  justification  was  the 
result  of  his  faith,  and  that  this  faith  was  connected  with  that  in  his 
sacrifice  which  distinguished  it  from  the  offering  of  Cain ;  and  thus  its 
expiatory  character  is  established  by  its  having  been  the  means  to  him 
of  the  remission  of  sin  ;  and  the  appointed  medium  of  the  "  conveyance'^ 
and  "  security''^  of  the  benefit.  We  have  also  seen,  that  Noah's  burnt 
pfiering  was  connected  with  the  averting  of  the  wrath  of  God  from  the 
future  world,  so  that  not  even  its  wickedness  should  lead  him  again  "  to 
destroy  all  flesh"  by  a  universal  flood ;  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  friends 
of  Job  (5)  were  of  the  same  expiatory  character;  and  that  the  reason 
for  the  prohibition  of  blood  was,  under  both  dispensations,  the  patriarchal 

(5)  Mr.  Davison,  in  pursuance  of  his  theory,  that  the  patriarchal  sacrifices 
were  not  expiatory,  has  strangely  averred,  that  this  transaction  is  "a  proof  of 
the  efficacy  of  Job's  prayer,  not  of  the  expiatory  power  of  the  sacrifice  of  his 
friends."  Why,  then,  was  not  the  prayer  efficacious,  without  the  sacrifice? 
And  how  could  the  "burnt  offering"  of  his  friends  give  efficacy  to  his  prayer, 
unless  by  way  of  expiation  1  What  is  the  office  of  expiatory  sacrifice,  but  to 
avert  the  anger  of  God  from  the  offerer?  This  was  precisely  the  effect  of 
the  burnt  offering  of  Eliphaz  and  his  friends  :  that  it  was  connected  with  the 
prayer  of  Job,  no  more  alters  the  expiatory  character  of  that  offering,  than  the 
prayers  which  accompanied  such  offerings  under  the  law, 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  201 

and  the  Mosaic,  the  same.  To  these  may  be  added  two  passages  in 
Exodus,  which  show  that  animal  sacrifices,  among  the  patriarchs,  were 
offered  for  averting  the  Divine  displeasure,  and  that  this  notion  of  sacri- 
fice was  entertained  by  the  Israelites,  previous  to  the  giving  of  the  law. 
*'  Let  us  go,  I  pray  thee,  three  days'  journey  into  the  desert,  and  sacrifice 
unto  the  Lord  our  God,  lest  he  fall  vpon  us  with  ■pestilence,  or  with  the 
sword"  Exodus  v,  3.  "Thou  must  give  us  also  sacrifices  and  burnt 
offerings,  that  we  may  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  our  God,"  Exodus  x, 
25,  26.  The  remark  of  Dr.  Richie  {Pec.  Doc.)  is  here  pertinent.  "In 
these  two  passages  Moses  and  Aaron  speak  of  sacrificing  not  as  a  new 
and  uncommon  thing,  but  as  a  usual  mode  of  worship,  with  which  Pha- 
raoh was  as  well  acquainted  as  themselves,  consequently  a  thing  that 
was  not  a  late  or  new  invention."  And  in  pursuance  of  the  same  argu- 
ment  it  may  be  noted,  that  Moses,  even  in  the  law,  nowhere  speaks  of 
expiatory  sacrifice  as  a  new  institution,  a  rite  which  was  henceforward 
to  be  considered  as  bearing  a  higher  character  than  formerly ;  but  as  a 
thing  familiar  to  the  people.  Now  such  an  intimation  would,  doubtless, 
have  been  necessary  on  the  very  ground  just  stated,  the  repugnancy  of 
animal  sacrifices,  considered  as  expiatory,  to  nature  and  reason  ;  but  to 
prepare  them  for  such  a  change,  for  an  institution  so  repugnant  to  the 
former  class  and  order  of  their  notions  on  this  subject,  there  is  nothing 
said  by  Moses,  no  intimation  of  an  alteration  in  the  character  of  sacrifice 
is  given ;  but  a  practice  manifestly  familiar  is  brought  under  new  and 
special  rules,  assigned  to  certain  persons  as  the  sacrificers,  and  to  cer- 
tain places,  and  appropriated  to  the  national  religion,  and  the  system  of 
a  theocratical  government.  Whence,  then,  did  this  familiarity  with  the 
notion  of  expiatory  sacrifice  arise  among  the  Israelites  ?  If  the  book 
of  Genesis  were  written  previously  to  the  law,  and  they  collected  the 
notion  from  that,  then  this  is  proof  that  they  understood  the  patriarchal 
sacrifices  to  be  expiatory ;  and  if,  as  others  think,  that  book  was  not 
written  the  first  in  the  series  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  the  last,  they  had  the 
notion  from  tradition  and  custom. 

Though  we  think  that  the  evidence  of  Scripture  is  of  sufficient  clear- 
ness  to  establish  the  Divine  origin  of  the  antediluvian  sacrifices  ;  and, 
with  Hallet,  (in  Hebrews  xi,  4,)  regard  the  public  Divine  acceptance  of 
Abel's  sacrifice  as  amounting  to  a  d£monstration  of  their  institution  by 
the  authority  of  God,  the  argument  drawn  from  the  natural  incongruity 
of  sacrificial  rites,  on  which  so  many  writers  have  forcibly  dwelt,  ought 
not  to  be  overlooked.  It  comes  in  to  confirm  the  above  deductions 
from  Scripture,  and  though  it  has  been  sometimes  attacked  with  great 
ingenuity,  it  has  never  been  solidly  refuted.  "It  is  evident,"  says 
Delany,  {Revelation  Examined,)  "  that  unprejudiced  reason  never  could 
antecedently  dictate,  that  destroying  the  best  of  our  fruits  and  creatures 
could  be  an  office  acceptable  to  God,  but  quite  the  contrar}'.     Also,  that  it 

2 


202  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

did  not  prevail  from  any  demand  of  nature  is  undeniable,  for  I  believe 
that  no  man  will  say  that  we  have  any  natural  instinct  or  appetite  to 
gratify  in  spilling  the  blood  of  an  innocent,  inoffensive  creature  upon 
the  earth,  or  burning  his  body  upon  an  altar.  Nor  could  there  be  any 
temptation  from  appetite  to  do  this  in  those  ages,  when  the  whole  sacri- 
fice was  consumed  by  fire,  or  when,  if  it  were  not,  yet  men  wholly 
abstained  from  flesh." 

The  practice  cannot  be  resolved  into  -priestcraft,  for  no  order  of  priests 
was  then  instituted ;  and  if  men  resolve  it  into  superstition,  they  must 
not  only  suppose  that  the  first  family  were  superstitious,  but,  also,  that 
God,  by  his  acceptance  of  Abel's  sacrifice,  gave  his  sanction  to  a  super- 
stitious and  irrational  practice ;  and  if  none  will  be  so  bold  as  this,  there 
remains  no  other  resource,  than  to  contend  for  its  reasonableness,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  argument  just  quoted  from  Delany  ;  and  to  aid  the  case  by 
assuming,  also,  that  it  was  the  dictate  of  a  delicate  and  enlightened  sen- 
timentahsm.  This  is  the  course  taken  by  Mr.  Davison,  who  has  placed 
what  others  have  urged  with  the  same  intent,  in  the  most  forcible  light, 
so  that,  in  refuting  him,  we  refute  all.  To  begin  with  "  the  more  sim- 
ple forms  of  oblation ;"  those  offerings  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  which 
have  been  termed  eucharistical,  "  reason,"  says  Mr.  Davison,  "  seems  to 
recognize  them  at  once ;  they  are  the  tokens  of  a  commemorative  piety, 
rendering  to  the  Creator  and  supreme  Giver  a  portion  of  his  gifts,  in 
confession  of  his  original  dominion  in  them,  and  of  his  continued  favour 
and  beneficence."  But  this  is  very  far  from  being  a  rational  account 
of  even  simple  thank  ofTerings  of  fruits  ;  supposing  such  offerings  to 
have  been  really  made  in  those  primitive  times.  Of  this,  in  fact,  we 
have  no  evidence,  for  we  read  only  of  one  oblation  of  this  kind,  that  of 
Cain,  and  it  was  not  accepted  by  God.  But  waiving  that  objection, 
and  supposing  such  offerings  to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  primitive 
worship,  from  whence,  we  may  ask,  did  men  obtain  the  notion,  that  in 
such  acts  they  gave  hack  to  the  supreme  Giver  some  portion  of  his  gifts  ? 
It  is  not,  surely,  assumed  by  the  advocates  of  this  theory,  that  the  first 
men  were  like  those  stupid  idolaters  of  following  ages,  who  thought  that 
the  deities  themselves  feasted  upon  the  oblations  brought  to  their  tem- 
pies.  On  the  contrary,  their  views  of  God  were  elevated  and  spiritual ; 
and  whenever  such  a  Being  is  acknowledged,  it  is  clear,  that  the  notion 
of  giving  hack  any  thing  to  him,  can  only  be  a  rational  one,  when  he 
has  appointed  something  to  be  done  in  return  for  his  gifts,  or  to  be 
appropriated  to  his  service  ;  which  leads  us  at  once  to  the  doctrine  of 
a  Divine  institution.  The  only  rational  notion  of  a  return  to  God  as  an 
acknowledgment  for  his  favours,  when  notions  of  his  spirituality  and 
independence  are  entertained,  is  that  of  gratitude,  and  thanksgiving,  and 
obedience.  These  form  "  a  reasonable  service ;"  but  when  we  go 
beyond  these,  we  may  well  be  at  a  loss  to  know  "  what  we  can  give  unto 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  203 

him."  If  he  requires  more  than  these,  as  acknowledgments  of  our 
dependence  and  his  goodness,  how  should  we  know  that  he  requires 
more,  unless  we  had  some  revelation  on  the  subject?  And  if  we  had  a 
general  revelation,  importing  that  something  more  would  be  acceptable, 
how  should  we  be  able  to  fix  upon  one  particular  thing,  as  the  subject 
of  such  an  oblation,  more  than  another?  A  Divine  institution  would 
invest  such  offerings  with  a  symbolical,  or  a  typical  character,  or  both  ; 
and  then  they  would  have  a  manifest  reason  ;  but,  assuredly,  independ- 
ent of  that,  they  would  rest  upon  no  rational  ground  whatever  ;  there 
could  be  no  discernible  connection  between  the  act  and  the  end,  in  any 
case  where  the  majesty  and  spirituality  of  God  were  recognized.  Mr. 
Davison  assumes  that,  though  "the  prayer  or  the  oblation  cannot 
purchase  the  favour  of  God,  it  may  make  us  fitter  objects  of  his 
favour."  But,  we  ask,  even  if  we  should  allow  that  prayer  makes  us 
fitter  objects  of  his  favour,  how  we  could  know  even  this  without  reve- 
lation ;  or,  if  we  could  place  this  effect  to  the  account  of  prayer  by 
something  like  a  rational  deduction,  how  we  could  get  the  idea,  that  to 
approach  a  spiritual  Being,  w  ith  a  few  handfuls  of  fruit  gathered  from 
the  earth,  and  to  present  them  in  addition  to  our  prayers,  should 
render  us  the  "  fitter  objects"  of  the  Divine  beneficence  ?  There  is  no 
rational  connection  between  the  act  and  the  end,  on  which  to  establish 
the  conclusion. 

Reason  failing  here,  recourse  is  had  to  sentiment. 

"  In  the  first  dawn  of  the  world,  and  the  beginnings  of  religion,  it  is 
reasonable  to  think  that  the  direction  of  feeling  and  duty  was  more 
exclusively  toward  God.  The  recent  creation  of  the  world,  the  revela- 
tions in  paradise,  and  the  great  transactions  of  his  providence,  may 
well  be  thought  to  have  wrought  a  powerful  impression  on  the  first  race, 
and  to  have  given  them,  though  not  a  purer  knowledge,  yet  a  more 
intimate  and  a  more  intense  perception,  of  his  being  and  presence. — 
The  continued  miracle  of  the  actual  manifestations  of  God  would  enforce 
the  same  impressions  upon  them.  These  having  less  scope  of  action 
in  communion  with  their  fellow  creatures,  in  the  solitude  of  hfe  around 
them,  in  the  great  simplicity  of  the  social  state,  and  the  consequent  des- 
titution  of  the  objects  of  the  social  duties  ;  their  religion  would  make  the 
acts  of  devotion  its  chief  monuments  of  moral  obhgation.  Works  of 
justice  and  charity  could  have  little  place.  Works  of  adoration  must 
fill  the  void.  And  it  is  real  action,  not  unembodied  sentiment,  w^hich 
the  Creator  has  made  to  be  the  master  principle  of  our  moral  constitu- 
tion.  From  these  causes  some  boldness  in  the  form  of  a  representative 
character,  some  ritual  clothed  with  the  imagery  of  a  symbolical  expres- 
sion, would  more  readily  pass  into  the  first  liturgy  of  nature.  Not  sim- 
pie  adoration,  not  the  naked  and  unadorned  oblations  of  the  tongue ;  but 
adoration  invested  in  some  striking  and  significative  form,  and  conveyed 

2 


204  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

by  the  instrumentality  of  material  tokens,  would  be  most  in  accordance 
with  the  strong  energies  of  feeling,  and  the  insulated  condition  of  the 
primitive  race."  {Primitive  Sac.) 

Two  or  three  observations  will  be  sufficient  to  dissipate  all  these 
fancy  pictures.  1.  It  is  not  true,  that  the  "  recent  creation  of  the 
world,  the  revelations  in  paradise,"  &c,  made  that  great  moral  impres- 
sion  upon  the  first  men  which  is  here  described.  That  impression  did 
not  keep  our  first  parents  from  sin  ;  much  less  did  it  produce  this  effect 
upon  Cain  and  his  descendants  ;  nor  upon  "  the  sons  of  God,"  the  race 
of  Seth,  who  soon  became  corrupt ;  and  so  wickedness  rapidly  in- 
creased, until  the  measure  of  the  sin  of  the  world  was  filled  up.  2.  It 
is  equally  unfounded,  that  in  that  state  of  society  "  works  of  justice  and 
charity  could  have  little  place,  and  that  works  of  adoration  must  fill  the 
void  ;"  for  the  crimes  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  antediluvians  are  wick- 
edness, and  especially  violence,  which  is  opposed  both  to  justice  and  to 
charity ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  any  state  of  society  existing, 
since  the  fall,  in  which  both  justice  and  charity  were  not  virtues  of  daily 
requirement,  and  that  in  their  constant  and  vigorous  exercise.  Cain, 
for  instance,  needed  both,  for  he  grossly  violated  both  in  hating  and 
murdering  his  brother.  3.  That  strongly  active  devotional  sentiment 
which  Mr.  Davison  supposes  to  exist  in  those  ages,  which  required 
something  more  to  embody  and  represent  it  than  prayer  and  praise,  and 
which  with  so  much  plastic  energy  is  assumed  to  have  clothed  itself 
"  with  the  imagery  of  a  symbolical  expression,"  is  equally  contra- 
dicted by  the  facts  of  the  case.  There  was  no  such  excess  of  the  devo- 
tional principle.  On  Mr.  Davison's  own  interpretation  of  the  "  more 
abundant  sacrifice,"  more  in  quantity,  one  of  the  two  brothers,  first 
descended  from  the  first  pair,  was  deficient  in  it ;  the  rapidly  spreading 
wickedness  of  man  shows  that  the  religious  sentiment  was  weak  and 
not  powerful ;  it  is  not  seen  even  in  the  perverted  forms  of  idolatry 
and  superstition,  for  neither  is  charged  upon  the  antediluvians,  but  moral 
wickedness  only  ;^  and  instead  of  their  having  "  a  more  intense  percep- 
tion of  the  being  and  presence  of  God,"  as  Mr.  Davison  imagines  for 
them,  Moses  declares  "  the  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  the  heart  of 
man  to  be  only  evil  continually,"  and  that  even  long  before  the  flood, 
and  while  men  were  alive  who  had  conversed  with  Adam.  Thus  pass 
away  the  fancies  on  which  this  theory  is  built ;  nor  is  that  of  Bishop 
Warburton  better  supported,  who  resolves  these  early  oblations  into  a 
representation  by  action,  arising  out  of  the  "  defects  and  imperfections 
of  the  primitive  language ;"  for  of  these  defects  and  imperfections 
there  is  not  only  not  the  least  evidence,  but  the  irresistible  inference 
from  the  narrative  of  Moses  is,  that  a  language  was  in  use  in  the  first 
family  sufficiently  copious  for  all  subjects  of  religion,  as  well  as  for  the 
common  intercourse  of  life.  This  notion  also  farther  involves  the 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  205 

absurdity  and  contradiction,  that  when  man  was  created  in  perfection, 
he  should  not  be  endowed  with  the  power  of  embodying  his  thoughts  in 
language. 

If,  then,  the  presentation  of  the  mere  fruits  of  the  earth  to  God  as 
thank  offerings  and  acknowledgments  of  dependence,  cannot  be  reason- 
ably accounted  for  without  supposing  a  Divine  institution,  the  difficulty 
is  increased  when  animal  oblations  are  added  to  these  offerings,  and 
considered  also  as  merely  eucharistical.  All  the  difficulties  just  men- 
tioned lie  with  equal  force  against  such  a  designation  of  them,  with  these 
additional  considerations,  1.  That  the  putting  beasts  to  death  is  an  act  far- 
ther removed  from  the  idea  of  a  mere  oblation,  since  nothing  would,  with- 
out a  revelation,  appear  less  acceptable  to  a  merciful  and  benevolent  being. 
2.  A  moral  objection  would  also  interpose.  Man's  dominion  of  the 
creatures  was  from  God  ;  but  it  was  to  be  exercised,  like  his  power  of 
every  other  kind,  upon  his  responsibility.  Wanton  cruelty  to  animals 
must,  of  necessity,  have  been  considered  a  moral  evil.  To  inflict  pain 
and  death  upon  even  the  noxious  animals,  without  so  clear  a  necessity 
as  should  warrant  it,  and  without  its  being  necessar\'  to  the  "  subduing" 
of  the  earth,  could  not  be  thought  blameless,  much  less  upon  those  in- 
noxious animals  which,  from  the  beginning,  were  the  only  subjects  of 
sacrifice.  This  would  be  felt  the  more  strongly  before  flesh  had  been  per- 
mitted  to  man  for  food,  and  when,  so  to  speak,  a  greater  sacredness  was 
thrown  around  the  life  of  the  domestic  animals  than  afterward  ;  nor  can 
it  appear  reasonable,  even  if  we  were  to  allow  that  a  sort  of  sentiment- 
ality  might  lead  man  to  fix  upon  the  oblation  of  slain  beasts  as  an  ex- 
pressive ritual  to  be  added  to  the  "Liturgy  of  Nature;"  that,  without 
any  authority,  any  intimation  from  Heaven  that  such  sacrifices  would  be 
well  pleasing  to  God,  men  could  conclude  that  a  mere  sentimental 
notion  of  ceremonial  fitness,  and  giving  "  boldness  to  the  representative 
character"  of  worship,  would  be  a  sufficient  moral  reason  to  take  of 
their  flocks  and  herds,  and  shed  their  blood  and  bum  their  flesh  upon  altars. 
Mr.  Davison  endeavours  to  meet  the  objection  to  the  natural  incongruity 
of  animal  sacrifices  as  acts  of  worship,  by  distinguishing  between  the  two 
conditions  of  animal  sacrifice,  "  the  guilt  of  the  worshipper  and  the  expia- 
tion of  his  sin."  Expiatory  sacrifice,  we  have  seen,  he  gives  up,  as  not  for 
a  moment  to  be  referred  to  human  invention,  but  thinks  that  there  was  no 
natural  incongruity  in  the  offering  of  animals  as  a  mere  acknowledgment 
of  guilt,  and  as  a  confession  of  sin  and  the  desert  of  death.  But  still,  if  we 
could  trace  any  connection  between  this  symbohcal  confession  and  the 
real  case  of  man,  which  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  what  could  lead 
him  to  the  idea  that  more  than  simple  confession  of  sin  by  the  lips,  and 
the  penitent  feelings  of  the  heart,  would  be  acceptable  to  God,  if  he  had 
received  no  revelation  on  the  subject  ?  and  if  this,  like  tb.e  former,  were 
a  device  of  mere  ceremonial  sentimentalism,  it  was  still  too  frail  a  ground 

2 


206  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to"  justify  hispu'tting  theinferrcf  creatures' to  death,  without  warrant  from 
their  Creator  and  Preserver.  It  is  also  equally  unfortunate  for  this 
theory,  and,  indeed,  wholly  fatal  to  it,  that  the  distinction  of  clean  and 
unclean  beasts  existed,  as  we  have  already  seen,  before  the  flood.  Upon 
what,  then,  was  this  distinction  founded  ?  Not  upon  their  qualities  as 
good  for  food  or  otherwise,  for  animals  were  not  yet  granted  for  food  ; 
and  the  death  of  one  animal  would  therefore  have  been  just  as  appropri- 
ate as  a  symbol  of  gratitude,  or  as  an  acknowledgment  of  the  desert  of 
death,  as  another, — a  horse  as  a  heifer,  a  dog  as  a  lamb.  Nay,  if  animals 
were  intended  to  represent  the  sinner  himself,  unclean  and  ferocious  ani- 
mals would  have  been  fitter  types  of  his  fallen  and  sinful  state  ;  and  that 
they  were  to  be  clean,  harmless,  and  without  spot,  shows  that  they  repre- 
sented some  other.  The  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean,  however,  did 
exist  in  that  early  period,  and  it  is  only  to  be  accounted  for  by  referring 
it  to  a  sacrificial  selection,  and  that  upon  Divine  authority. 

To  the  human  invention  of  sacrifice,  the  objection  of  "  will  worsMp'^ 
has  also  been  forcibly  and  triumphantly  urged.  "  Who  hath  required  this 
at  your  hands  ?"  "  In  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men."  This  has  the  force  of  an  axiom,  which,  if 
it  ought  not  to  be  applied  too  rigidly  to  the  minutiae  of  forms  of  wor- 
ship when  they  connect  themselves  with  authorized  leading  acts,  yet 
must  have  a  direct  application  to  a  worship  which,  in  its  substance  and 
leading  circumstance,  was  eminently  sacrificial,  if  it  be  regarded  as 
wholly  of  human  device.  "  Thus,"  says  Hallet,  "  Abel  must  have 
worshipped  God  in  vain,  if  his  sacrificing  had  been  merely  a  command- 
ment of  his  father  Adam,  or  an  invention  of  his  own ;"  and  he  justly 
asks,  "  why  we  do  not  now  offer  up  a  bullock,  a  sheep,  or  a  pigeon,  as 
a  thank  offering  after  any  remarkable  deliverance,  or  as  an  evidence  of 
our  apprehensions  of  the  demerit  of  sin  ?"  The  sure  reason  is,  because 
we  cannot  know  that  God  will  accept  such  "  will  worship,"  and  so  con- 
clude that  we  should  herein  worship  God  "  in  vain." 

The  Divine  institution  of  expiatory  sacrifice  being  thus  carried  up  to 
the  first  ages,  and  to  the  family  of  the  first  sinning  man,  we  perceive 
the  unify  of  the  three  great  dispensations  of  religion  to  man,  the  Patri- 
archal, the  Levitical,  and  the  Christian,  in  the  great  principle, 
"  and  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission."  But  one 
religion  has  been  given  to  man  since  his  fall,  though  gradually  commu- 
nicated. "  This  may  be  best  denominated  the  ministry  of  reconci- 
liation, for  its  exclusive  object,  however  modified  externally,  is  to 
satisfy  Gob's  justice,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  woman's  pre- 
dicted seed  ;  to  restore  fallen  man  to  the  Divine  image  of  holiness,  by 
the  agency  of  the  gracious  Spirit ;  and  thus,  without  compromising  any 
one  of  God's  attributes,  to  reconcile  an  apostate  race  to  their  offended 
Creator."  {Faber's  Horce  Mas.) 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTE^?.  207 

We  have  now  adduced  the  Scriptural  evidence  of  the  atonement 
made  by  the  death  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  the  world  ;  a  doctrine  not 
speculative  and  indifferent,   but  vital  to  the  whole  scheme  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  a  doctrine  which  tends  to  produce  the  most  awful  sense  of  sin, 
and  to  afford  the  most  solemn  motive  to  repentance ;  which  at  once 
excites  the  most  sublime  views  of  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God,  and 
gives  the  most  affecting  exhibition  of  the    compassion  and  love  of 
Christ ;  which  is  the  only  ground  of  faith  in  the  pardoning  love  of  God, 
and  the  surest  guard  against  presumption;    and  which,    by  opening 
access  to  God  in  prayer,  keeps  before  man  a  safe  and  secure  refuge 
amidst  the  troubles  of  life,  and  in  the  prospect  of  eternity.     It  is  the 
only  view,  too,  of  the  death  of  Christ  which  interprets  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures into  a  consistent  and  unequivocal  meaning.     Their  language  is 
wholly  constructed  upon  it,  and,  therefore,  can  only  be  interpreted  by  it ; 
it  is  the  key  to  their  style,  their  allusions,  their  doctrines,  their  prophe- 
cies, their  types.     All  is  confused  and  delusive  without  it ;   all  clear, 
composed,  and  ordered,  when  placed  under  its  illumination.     To  Christ 
under  his  sacrificial  character,  as  well  as  in  his  regal  claims,  "  give  all 
the  prophets  witness  ;"  and  in  this  testimony  all  the  services  of  the  taber- 
nacle, and  the  rights  of  the  patriarchal  age  concur.     Christ,  as  "  the 
Lamb  of  God,  was  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world ;"  and  when 
the  world  shall  be  no  more,  he  will  appear  before  his  glorified  saints,  as 
"  the  Lamb  newly  slain,"  shedding  upon  them  the  unabated  efficacy  of 
his  death  for  ever.     Nor  is  it  a  doctrine  to  be  rejected  without  immi- 
nent peril. — "  Verilj^,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  you  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  have  no  life  in  you ;"  words 
which,  as  Whitby  justly  observes,  "  clearly  declare  the  necessity  of  faith 
in  his  body  given,  and  his  blood  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  in  ordef 
to  justification  and  salvation." 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Be]nt:fits  derived  to  Man  from  the  Atoneme^"^— Justification. 

When  we  speak  of  benefits  received  by  the  human  race,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  the  tmth  is,  that  man,  having  forfeited 
good  of  every  kind,  and  even  life  itself,  by  his  transgression,  all  that 
remains  to  him  more  than  evil  in  the  natural  world,  and  in  the  dispensa- 
tions  of  general  and  particular  providence,  as  well  as  all  spiritual  bless- 
ings put  within  his  reach  by  the  Gospel,  are  to  be  considered  as  the 
fruits  of  the  death  and  intercession  of  Christ,  and  ought  to  be  grate- 
fully  acknowledged  as  such.  We  enjoy  nothing  in  our  own  right,  and 
receive  all  from  the  hands  of  the  Divine  mercy.      We  now,  however, 

2 


208  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

speak  in  particular  of  those  benefits  which  immmediately  relate  to,  or 
which  constitute  what  in  Scripture  is  called  our  salvation  ;  by  which 
term  is  meant  the  deliverance  of  man  from  the  penalty,  dominion,  and 
pollution  of  his  sins ;  his  introduction  into  the  Divine  favour  in  this  Ufe  ; 
cind  his  future  and  eternal  felicity  in  another. 

The  grand  object  of  our  redemption  was  to  accomplish  this  salva- 
tion ;  and  the  first  effect  of  Christ's  atonement,  whether  anticipated 
before  his  coming,  as  "  the  Lamb  slain  from  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world,"  or  when  effected  by  his  passion,  was  to  place  God  and 
man  in  that  new  relation,  from  which  salvation  might  be  derived  to  the 
offender. 

The  only  relation  in  which  an  offended  sovereign  and  a  guilty  subject 
could  stand,  in  mere  justice,  was  the  relation  of  a  judge  and  a  criminal 
capitally  convicted.  The  new  relation  effected  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
is,  as  to  God,  that  of  an  offended  sovereign  having  devised  honourable 
means  to  suspend  the  execution  of  the  sentence  of  death,  and  to  offer 
terms  of  pardon  to  the  condemned  ;  and,  as  to  man,  that  as  the  object 
of  this  compassion,  he  receives  assurance  of  the  placableness  of  God, 
and  his  readiness  to  forgive  all  his  offences,  and  may,  by  the  use  of  the 
prescribed  means,  actually  obtain  this  favour. 

To  this  is  to  be  added  another  consideration.  God  is  not  merely 
disposed  to  forgive  the  offences  of  men  upon  their  suit  and  application ; 
but  an  affecting  activity  is  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  the  compassion  of 
God.  The  atonement  of  Christ  having  made  it  morally  practicable  to 
exercise  mercy,  and  having  removed  all  legal  obstructions  out  of  the 
way  of  reconcihation,  that  mercy  pours  itself  forth  in  ardent  and  cease- 
less efforts  to  accomplish  its  own  purposes,  and  not  content  with  wait- 
ing the  return  of  man  in  penitence  and  prayer,  "  God  is  in  Christ 
reconcihng  the  world  unto  himself;"  that  is  to  say,  he  employs  various 
means  to  awaken  men  to  a  due  sense  of  their  fallen  and  endangered 
condition,  and  to  prompt  and  influence  them  (sometimes  with  mighty 
efficacy)  to  seek  his  favour  and  grace,  in  the  way  which  he  has  himself 
ordained  in  his  revealed  word. 

The  mixed  and  chequered  external  circumstances  of  men  in  this  pre- 
sent life  is  a  providential  arrangement  which  is  to  be  attributed  to  this 
design ;  and,  viewed  under  this  aspect,  it  throws  an  interesting  light 
upon  the  condition  of  mankind,  unknown  to  the  wisest  among  those 
nations  whi^h  have  not  had  the  benefits  of  revealed  religion,  except  that 
some  glimpses,  in  a  few  cases,  may  have  been  afforded  of  this  doctrine 
by  the  scattered  and  broken  rays  of  early  tradition.  Nor  has  this  been 
always  adverted  to  by  those  writers  who  have  enjoyed  the  full  mani- 
festations of  Divine  truth  in  the  Scriptures.  By  many,  the  infliction  of 
labour,  and  sorrow,  and  disappointment  upon  fallen  man,  and  the  short- 
ening of  the  term  of  human  hfe,  are  considered  chiefly,  if  not  exclu. 
2 


SECO?fD.j  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  209 

sively,  as  measures  adopted  to  prevent  evil,  or  of  restraining  its  overflow 
in  society.  Such  ends  are,  doubtless,  by  the  wisdom  of  God,  thus 
effected  to  a  great  and  beneficial  extent ;  but  there  is  a  still  higher  de- 
sign. These  dispensations  are  not  only  instruments  of  prevention,  but 
designed  means  of  salvation,  preparatory  to,  and  co-operative  with 
those  agencies,  by  which  that  result  can  only  be  directly  produced. 
The  state  of  man  shows,  that  he  is  under  a  chequered  dispensation,  in 
which  justice  and  forbearance,  mercy  and  correction,  have  all  their 
place,  and  in  which  there  is  a  marked  adaptation  to  his  state  as  a  re- 
prieved criminal ;  a  being  still  guilty,  but  within  the  reach  of  hope. 
The  earth  is  cursed ;  but  it  yields  its  produce  to  man's  toil ;  life  is  pro- 
longed in  some  instances  and  curtailed  in  others,  and  is  uncertain  to  all ; 
we  have  health  and  sickness ;  pleasures  and  pains  ;  gratifications  and 
disappointment ;  but  as  to  all,  in  circumstances  however  favoured,  dis- 
satisfaction and  restlessness  of  spirit  are  still  felt ;  a  thirst  which  nothing 
earthly  can  allay,  a  vacuity  which  nothing  in  our  outward  condition  can 
supply.  There  is  a  manifestation  of  mercy  to  save,  as  well  as  of  wis- 
dom to  prevent,  and  the  great  end  of  the  whole  is  explained  by  the 
inspired  record.  "Lo  all  these  things  worketh  God  oftentimes  with 
man,  to  keep  back  his  soul  from  the  pit."  His  ''  goodness"  is  designed 
to  lead  us  "  to  repentance,"  his  rod  to  teach  us  wisdom.  "  In  the  day 
of  adversity  Consider." 

Another  benefit  granted  for  the  same  end,  is  the  revelation  of  the  will 
of  God,  and  the  declaration  of  his  purposes  of  grace  as  to  man's  actual 
redemption.  These  purposes  have  been  declared  to  man,  with  great 
inequality  we  grant,  a  mystery  which  we  are  not  able  to  explain ;  but 
we  have  the  testimony  of  God  in  his  own  word,  though  we  cannot  in 
many  cases  trace  the  process  of  the  revelation,  that  in  no  case,  that  in 
no  nation,  "has  he  left  himself  without  witness."  Oral  revelations  were 
made  to  the  first  men ;  these  became  the  subject  of  tradition,  and  were 
carried  into  all  nations,  though  the  mercy  of  God,  in  this  respect,  was 
abused  by  that  wilful  corruption  of  his  truth  of  which  all  have  been 
guilty.  To  the  Jews  he  was  pleased  to  give  a  written  record  of  his 
will ;  and  the  possession  of  this,  in  its  perfect  evangelical  form,  has  be- 
come  the  distinguished  privilege  of  all  Christian  nations,  who  are  now 
exerting  themselves  to  make  the  blessing  universal,  a  result  which  pro- 
bably is  not  far  distant.  By  this  direct  benefit  of  the  atonement  of  Christ, 
the  law  under  which  we  are  all  placed  is  exhibited  in  its  full,  though 
reproving,  perfection  ;  the  character  of  "  Him  with  whom  we  have  to 
do"  is  unveiled  ;  the  history  of  the  redeeming  acts  of  our  Saviour  is  re- 
corded ;  his  example,  his  sufferings,  his  resurrection,  and  intercession, 
the  terms  of  our  pardon,  the  process  of  our  regeneration,  the  bright  and 
attractive  path  of  obedience,  are  all  presented  to  our  meditations,  and, 
surmounting  the  whole,  is  that  "  immortality  which  has  been  brought 

Vol.  U.  14 


210  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  light  by  the  Gospel."  Having  the  revelation,  also,  in  this  written 
form,  it  is  guarded  against  corruption,  and,  by  the  multiplication  of 
copies  in  the  present  day,  it  has  become  a  book  for  family  reading,  and 
private  perusal  and  study  ;  so  that  neither  can  we,  except  wilfully,  re- 
main ignorant  of  the  important  truths  it  contains,  nor  can  they  be  long 
absent  from  the  attention  of  the  most  careless ;  from  so  many  quarters 
are  they  obtruded  upon  them. 

To  this  great  religious  advantage  we  are  to  add  the  institution  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  or  the  appointment  of  men,  who  have  been  them- 
selves reconciled  to  God,  to  preach  the  word  of  reconciliation  to  others  ; 
to  do  this  publicly,  in  opposition  to  all  contempt  and  persecution,  in 
every  place  where  they  may  be  placed,  and  to  which  they  can  have 
access  :  to  study  the  word  of  God  themselves  ;  faithfully  and  affection- 
ately to  administer  it  to  persons  of  all  conditions ;  and  thus,  by  a  con- 
stant activity,  to  keep  the  light  of  truth  before  the  eyes  of  men,  and  to 
impress  it  upon  their  consciences. 

These  means  are  all  accompanied  with  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  for  it  is  the  constant  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  that  men  are 
not  left  to  the  mere  influence  of  a  revelation  of  truth,  and  the  means  of 
salvation  ;  but  are  graciously  excited  and  effectually  aided  in  all  their 
endeavours  to  avail  themselves  of  both.  Before  the  flood,  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  represented  as  "  striving"  with  men,  to  restrain  them  from  their 
wickedness,  and  to  lead  them  to  repentance.  This  especially  was  his 
benevolent  employ,  as  we  learn  from  St.  Peter,  during  the  whole  time 
that  "  the  ark  was  preparing,"  the  period  in  which  Noah  fulfilled  his 
ministry  as  "  preacher  of  righteousness"  to  the  disobedient  world.  Un- 
der the  law,  the  wicked  are  said  to  "  grieve"  and  "  resist"  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  good  men  are  seen  earnestly  supplicating  his  help,  not  only 
in  extraordinary  cases,  and  for  some  miraculous  purpose,  but  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  religious  experience  and  conflict.  The  final  establish, 
ment  and  the  moral  effects  flowing  from  Messiah's  dominion,  are  ascribed, 
by  the  prophets,  to  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  as  rain  upon  the 
parched  ground,  and  as  the  opening  of  rivers  in  the  desert ;  and  that 
the  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  not  confined,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  gifts 
and  miraculous  powers,  and  their  effects  in  producing  mere  intellectual 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  is  directed  to  the  renovation 
of  our  nature,  and  the  carrying  into  full  practical  effect  the  redeeming 
designs  of  the  Gospel,  is  manifest  from  numerous  passages  and  argu- 
ments to  be  found  in  the  discourses  of  Christ  and  the  writings  of  his 
apostles.  In  our  Lord's  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  he  declares  that 
the  regenerate  man  is  "  born  of  the  Spirit."  He  promises  to  send  the 
Spirit  "to  convince  (or  reprove)  the  world  of  sin."  It  is  by  the  Spirit 
that  our  Lord  represents  himself  as  carrying  on  the  work  of  human 
salvation,  after  his  return  to  heaven,  and  in  this  sense  promises  to  abide 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  311 

with  his  disciples  for  ever,  and  to  be  with  them  "  to  the  end  of  the 
world."  In  accordance  with  this,  the  apostles  ascribe  the  success  of 
their  preaching,  in  producing  moral  changes  in  the  hearts  of  men,  to 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  So  far  from  attributing  this  to  the  extraor- 
dinary gifts  with  which  the  Spirit  had  furnished  them,  St.  Paul  denies 
that  this  efficacy  was  to  be  ascribed  either  to  himself  or  ApoUos,  though 
both  were  thus  richly  endowed  ;  and  he  expressly  attributes  the  "  in- 
crease," which  followed  their  planting  and  watering,  to  God.  The  Spi- 
rit is,  therefore,  represented  as  giving  life  to  the  dead  souls  of  men  ; 
the  moral  virtues  are  called  "  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;"  and  to  be  "  led  by 
the  Spirit,"  is  made  the  proof  of  our  being  the  sons  of  God. 

Such  is  the  wondrous  and  deeply  affecting  doctrine  of  Scripture.  The 
fruit  of  the  death  and  intercession  of  Christ,  is  not  only  to  render  it  con- 
sistent with  a  righteous  government  to  forgive  sin,  but  to  call  forth  the 
active  exercise  of  the  love  of  God  to  man.  His  "  good  Spirit,"  the  ex- 
pressive appellation  of  the  third  person  of  the  blessed  trinity  in  the  Old 
Testament,  visits  every  heart,  and  connects  his  secret  influences  with 
outward  means,  to  awaken  the  attention  of  man  to  spiritual  and  eternal 
things,  and  win  his  heart  to  God.  (6) 

To  this  operation,  this  "  working  of  God  in  man,"  in  conjunction  with 
the  written  and  preached  word,  and  other  means  of  religious  instruction 
and  excitement,  is  to  be  attributed  that  view  of  the  spiritual  nature  of 
the  law  under  which  we  are  placed,  and  the  extent  of  its  demands, 
which  produces  conviction  o(  the  fact  of  sin,  and  at  once  annihilates  all 
self  righteousness,  and  all  palliations  of  offence ;  which  withers  the 
goodly  show  of  supposititious  virtues,  and  brings  the  convicted  transgres- 
sor, whatever  his  character  may  be  before  men,  and  though,  in  compa- 
rison of  many  of  his  fellow  creatures,  he  may  have  been  much  less  sin- 
ful, to  say  before  God,  "  Behold,  I  am  vile,  what  shall  I  answer  thee." 
The  penalty  of  the  law,  death,  eternal  death,  being  at  the  same  time 
apprehended,  and  meditated  upon,  the  bondage  of  fear,  and  the  painful 
anticipations  of  the  consequences  of  sin  follow,  and  thus  he  is  moved  by 
a  sense  of  danger,  to  look  out  for  a  remedy  ;  and  this  being  disclosed 
in  the  same  revelation,  and  unfolded  by  the  same  Spirit,  from  whose 
secret  influence  he  has  received  this  unwonted  tenderness  of  heart,  this 
"  broken  and  contrite  spirit,"  he  confesses  his  sins  before  God,  and  ap- 
pears like  the  publican  in  the  temple,  smiting  upon  his  breast,  exclaim- 
ing, "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  :" — thus  at  once  acknowledging 
his  own  offence  and  unworthiness,  and  flying  for  refuge  to  the  mercy  of 
his  offended  God  proclaimed  to  him  in  Christ.     That  which  every  such 

(6)  "  lUius  esse  duritiem  humani  cordis  emollire,  cum  aut  per  salutiferam  prsB- 
dicationem  Evangelii,  aut  alia  quacunque  ratione  in  pectora  hominuni  recipitur  : 
ilium  eos  illuminare,  et  in  agnitionem  Dei  atque  in  omnem  viam  veritatis  et  in 
totius  vitae  novitatem,  et  perpetuam  salutis  spem  perducerc."  (Bishop  Jewel.) 

2 


212  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

convinced  and  awakened  man  needs  is  mercy,  the  remission  of  his  sins, 
and  consequent  exemption  from  their  penalty.  It  is  only  this  which  can 
take  him  from  under  the  malediction  of  the  general  law  which  he  has 
violated  ;  only  this  which  can  bring  him  into  a  state  of  reconciliation 
and  friendship  with  the  Lawgiver,  whose  righteous  displeasure  he  has 
provoked.  This  act  of  mercy  is,  in  the  New  Testament,  called  justU 
Jication,  and  to  the  consideration  of  this  doctrine  we  must  now  direct 
our  attention. 

On  the  nature  of  justification,  its  extent,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  is 
attained,  it  is  not  necessary  to  say,  that  various  opinions  have  been  as- 
serted and  defended  by  theologians ;  but  before  we  advert  to  any  of 
them,  our  care  shall  be  to  adduce  the  natural  and  unperverted  doctrine 
of  Scripture  on  a  subject  which  it  is  of  so  much  importance  to  appre- 
hend clearly,  in  that  light  in  which  it  is  there  presented. 

The  first  point  which  we  find  established  by  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  is,  that  justification,  the  pardon  and  remission  of  sins,  the 
non-imputation  of  sin,  and  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  are  terms 
and  phrases  of  the  same  import.  The  following  passages  may  be  giv^ 
in  proof: — 

Luke  xviii,  13,  14,  "I  tell  you,  this  man  went  down  to  his  house  JM5- 
tified,  rather  than  the  other."  Here  the  term  "justified"  must  mean 
pardoned,  since  the  publican  confessed  himself  "  a  sinner,"  and  asked 
"  mercy"  in  that  relation. 

Acts  xiii,  38,  39,  "  Be  it  known  unto  you,  men  and  brethren,  that 
through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  and  by 
him,  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could 
not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses."  Here,  also,  it  is  plain  that  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  justification  mean  the  same  thing,  one  term  being 
used  as  explanatory  of  the  other. 

Romans  iii,  25,  26,  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation, 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission 
of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  to  declare,  I  say, 
at  this  time  his  righteousness,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifer  of 
him  which  believeth  in  Jesus."  To  remit  sins  and  to  justify  are  here 
also  represented  as  the  same  act ;  consequent  upon  a  declaration  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  and  upon  our  faith. 

Rom.  iv,  4-8,  "  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him 
that  justifeth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness ;  even 
as  David  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  God  irwpu- 
teth  righteousness  without  works,  saying,  Blessed  is  the  man  whose  ini- 
quities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered ;  blessed  is  the  man  to 
whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin."  The  quotation  from  David,  intro- 
duced by  the  apostle,  by  way  of  illustrating  his  doctrine  of  the  justifica- 
tion of  the  \mgodly,  by  "  counting  his  faith  for  righteousness,"  shows 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  213 

clearly,  that  he  considered  "justification,"  "the  imputing  of  righteous, 
ness,"  "  the  forgiveness  of  iniquities,"  the  "  covering  of  sin,"  the  "  non- 
imputation  of  sin,"  as  of  the  same  import ;  acts  substantially  equivalent 
one  to  another,  though  under  somewhat  different  views,  and  therefore 
expressed  by  terms  respectively  convertible  ; — this  variety  of  phrase  be- 
ing adopted,  probably,  to  preserve  the  idea  which  runs  throughout  the 
whole  Scripture,  that  in  the  remission  or  pardon  of  sin.  Almighty  God 
acts  in  his  character  of  Ruler  and  Judge,  showing  mercy  upon  terms 
satisfactory  to  his  justice,  when  he  might  in  rigid  justice  have  punished 
our  transgressions  to  the  utmost.  The  term  justification  especially  is 
judiciary,  and  taken  from  courts  of  law  and  the  proceedings  of  magis- 
trates ;  and  this  judiciary  character  of  the  act  of  pardon  is  also  con- 
firmed by  the  relation  of  the  parties  to  each  other,  as  it  is  constantly 
exhibited  in  Scripture.  God  is  an  offended  Sovereign ;  man  is  an 
offending  subject.  He  has  offended  against  public  law,  not  against  pri- 
vate obligations  ;  and  the  act  therefore  by  which  he  is  relieved  from  the 
penalty,  must  be  magisterial  and  regal.  It  is,  also,  a  farther  confirma- 
tion that  in  this  process  Christ  is  represented  as  a  public  Mediator  and 
Advocate. 

The  importance  of  acquiring  and  maintaining  this  simple  and  distinct 
view  of  justification,  that  it  is  the  remission  of  sins,  as  stated  in  the  pas- 
sages  above  quoted,  will  appear  from  the  following  considerations : — 

1.  We  are  taught  that  pardon  of  sin  is  not  an  act  of  prerogative,  done 
above  law  ;  but  a  judicial  process,  done  consistently  with  law.  For  in 
this  process  there  are  three  parties.  God,  as  Sovereign  ;  "  Who  shall 
lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  it  is  God  that  justifieth,  who 
is  he  that  condemneth  ?"  Christ,  as  Advocate  ;  not  defending  the  guilty, 
but  interceding  for  them  ;  "  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea,  rather,  that  is 
risen  again,  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh 
intercession  for  us,"  Rom.  viii,  33,  34.  "  And  if  any  man  sin,  we  have 
an  Advocate  with  the  Father,"  1  John  ii,  1 .  The  third  party  is  man, 
who  is,  by  his  own  confession,  "  guilty,"  "  a  sinner,"  "  ungodly  ;"  for 
repentance  in  all  cases  precedes  this  remission  of  sins,  and  it  both  sup- 
poses and  confesses  offence  and  desert  of  punishment.  God  is  Judge 
in  this  process,  not,  however,  as  it  has  been  well  expressed  "  by  the  law 
of  creation,  and  of  works,  but  by  the  law  of  redemption  and  grace.  Not 
as  merely  just,  though  just ;  but  as  merciful.  Not  as  merciful  in  gene- 
ral, and  ex  nuda  voluntate,  without  any  respect  had  to  satisfaction  ;  but 
as  propitiated  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  having  accepted  the  propitia- 
tion made  by  his  blood.  Not  merely  propitiated  by  his  blood,  but  moved 
by  his  intercession,  which  he  makes  as  our  Advocate  in  heaven  ;  not 
only  pleading  the  propitiation  made  and  accepted,  but  the  repentance 
and  faith  of  the  sinner,  and  the  promise  of  the  Judge  before  whom  he 
pleads."    {Lawson's  Theo-politica.)     Thus  as  pardon  or  justification 


214  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

does  not  take  place  but  upon  propitiation,  the  mediation  andi  intercession 
of  a  third  party,  and  on  the  condition  on  the  part  of  the  guilty,  not  only 
of  repentance,  but  of  "  faith"  in  Christ's  "  blood,"  which,  as  before  esta- 
Wished,  means  faith  in  his  sacrificial  death,  it  is  not  an  act  of  mere  mercy, 
or  of  prerogative  ;  but  one  which  consists  with  a  righteous  government, 
and  proceeds  on  grounds  which  secure  the  honours  of  the  Divine  justice. 

2.  We  are  thus  taught  that  justification  has  respect  to  particular  indi- 
viduals, and  is  to  be  distinguished  from  "  that  gracious  constitution  of 
God,  by  which,  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  so  far  delivers  all  man- 
kind  from  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  as  to  place  them,  notwithstanding 
their  natural  connection  with  the  fallen  progenitor  of  the  human  race, 
in  a  salvable  state.  Justification  is  a  blessing  of  a  much  higher  and 
more  perfect  character,  and  is  not  common  to  the  human  race  at  large, 
but  experienced  by  a  certain  description  of  persons  in  particular."  [Bunt- 
ing's Sermon  on  Justification.)  Thus  some  of  our  older  divines  properly 
distinguish  between  sententia  legis  and  sententia  judicis,  that  is,  between 
legislation  and  judgment ;  between  the  constitution,  whatever  it  may  be, 
under  which  the  sovereign  decides,  whether  it  be  rigidly  just  or  softened 
by  mercy,  and  his  decisions  in  his  regal  and  judicial  capacity  them- 
selves. Justification  is,  therefore,  a  decision  under  a  gracious  legisla- 
tion, "  the  law  of  faith  ;"  but  not  this  legislation  itself,  'f  For  if  it  be  an 
act  of  legislation,  it  is  then  only  promise,  and  that  looks  toward  none  in 
particular  ;  but  to  all  to  whom  the  promise  is  made,  in  general,  and  pre- 
supposeth  a  condition  to  be  performed.  But  justification  presupposeth 
a  particular  person,  a  particular  cause,  a  condition  performed,  and  the 
performance,  as  already  past,  pleaded ;  and  the  decision  proceeds  ac- 
cordingly." {Lawson's  Theo-politica.)  Justification  becomes,  there- 
fore, a  subject  of  personal  concern,  personal  prayer,  and  personal  seek- 
ing, and  is  to  be  personally  experienced ;  nor  can  any  one  be  safe  in 
trusting  to  that  general  gracious  constitution  under  which  he  is  placed 
by  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  since  that  is  established  in  order  to  the 
personal  and  particular  justification  of  those  who  believe,  but  must  not 
be  confounded  with  it. 

3.  Justification,  being  a  sentence  of  pardon,  the  Antinomian  notion 
of  eternal  justification  becomes  a  manifest  absurdity.  For  if  it  be  a 
sentence,  a  decision  on  the  case  of  the  offender,  it  must  take  place  in 
time ;  for  that  is  not  a  sentence  which  is  conceiyed  in  the  breast  of  the 
Judge.  A  sentence  is  pronounced,  and  a  sentence  pronounced  and  de- 
clared from  eternity,  before  man  was  created,  when  no  sin  had  been 
committed,  no  law  published,  no  Saviour  promised,  no  faith  exercised, 
when,  in  a  word,  no  being  existed  but  God  himself,  is  not  only  absurd, 
but  impossible,  for  it  would  have  been  a  decision  declared  to  none,  and 
therefore  not  declared  at  all :  and  if,  as  they  say,  the  sentence  was 
passed  in  eternity,  but  manifested  in  time,  it  might  from  thence  be  asi 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  215 

rightly  argued  that  the  world  was  created  from  eternity,  and  that  the 
work  of  creation  in  the  beginning  of  time,  was  only  a  manifestation  of 
that  which  was  from  everlasting.  It  is  the  guilty  who  are  pardoned — 
"  he  justifieth  the  ungodly ;"  guilt,  therefore,  precedes  pardon  :  while 
that  remains,  so  far  are  any  from  being  justified,  that  they  are  "  under 
wrath,"  in  a  state  of  "  condemnation,"  with  which  a  state  of  justifica- 
tion  cannot  consist,  for  the  contradiction  is  palpable  ;  so  that  the  advo- 
cates of  this  wild  notion  must  either  give  up  justification  in  eternity,  or 
a  state  of  condemnation  in  time.  If  they  hold  the  former,  they  contra- 
dict common  sense  ;  if  they  deny  the  latter,  they  deny  the  Scriptures. 

4.  Justification,  being  the  pardon  of  sin,  this  view  of  the  doctrine 
guards  us  against  the  notion,  that  it  is  an  act  of  God  by  which  we  are 
made  actually  just  and  righteous.  "  This  is  sanctification,  which  is, 
indeed,  the  immediate  fruit  of  justification ;  but,  nevertheless,  is  a  dis- 
tinct gift  of  God,  and  of  a  totally  diflferent  nature.  The  one  implies 
what  God  does  for  us  through  his  Son ;  the  other,  what  God  works  in 
us  by  his  Spirit.  So  that,  although  some  rare  instances  may  be  found, 
wherein  the  terms  justified  and  justification  are  used  in  so  wide  a  sense 
as  to  include  sanctification  also,  yet  in  general  use  they  are  sufficiently 
distinguished  from  each  other  both  by  St.  Paul  and  the  other  inspired 
writers."  {Wesley^s  Sermons.) 

5.  Justification,  being  the  pardon  of  sin  by  judicial  sentence  of  the 
offended  Majesty  of  heaven,  under  a  gracious  constitution,  the  term 
afl?brds  no  ground  for  the  notion,  that  it  imports  the  imputation  or  ac- 
counting to  us  the  active  and  passive  righteousness  of  Christ,  so  as  to 
make  us  both  relatively  and  positively  righteous. 

On  this  subject,  which  has  been  fruitful  of  controversy,  our  remarks 
must  be  somewhat  more  extended. 

The  notion,  that  justification  includes  not  only  the  pardon  of  sin,  but 
the  imputation  to  us  of  Christ's  active  personal  righteousness,  though 
usually  held  only  by  Calvinists,  has  not  been  received  by  all  divines  of 
this  class ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  by  some  of  them,  both  in  ancient  and 
modern  times,  it  has  been  very  strenuously  opposed,  as  well  as  by  the 
advocates  of  that  more  moderate  scheme  of  election  defended  by  Camero 
in  France,  and  by  Baxter  in  England.  Even .  Calvin  himself  has  said 
nothing  on  this  subject,  but  which  Arminius,  in  his  Declaration  before 
the  States  of  Holland,  declares  his  readiness  to  subscribe  to ;  and  Mr. 
Wesley,  in  much  the  same  view  of  the  subject  as  Arminius,  admits  the 
doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  us  upon  our 
beheving,  provided  it  be  soberly  interpreted. 

There  are,  in  fact,  three  opinions  on  this  subject,  which  it  is  neces, 
sary  to  distinguish  in  order  to  obtain  clear  views  of  the  controversy. 

The  first  is  a  part  of  the  high  Calvinistic  scheme,  and  lays  at  the 
foundation  of  Antinomianism,  and  is,  in  consequence,  violently  advocatecj 

2 


216  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

by  those  who  adopt  that  gross  corruption  of  Christian  faith.  It  is,  that 
Christ  so  represented  the  elect  that  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us  as 
ours ;  as  if  we  ourselves  had  been  what  he  was,  that  is,  perfectly  obe- 
dient to  the  law  of  God,  and  had  done  what  he  did  as  perfectly  righteous. 
The  first  objection  to  this  opinion  is,  that  it  is  nowhere  stated  in  Scrip, 
ture  that  Christ's  personal  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us.  Not  a  text 
can  be  found  which  contains  any  enunciation  of  this  doctrine  ;  and  those 
which  are  adduced,  such  as  "  the  Lord  our  righteousness,"  and  "  Christ, 
who  is  made  unto  us  righteousness,"  are  obviously  pressed  into  the  ser- 
vice of  this  scheme  by  a  paraphrastic  interpretation,  for  which  there  is 
no  authority  in  any  other  passages  which  speak  of  our  redemption.  But 
to  these  texts  we  shall  return  in  the  sequel. 

2.  The  notion  here  attached  to  Christ's  representing  us  is  wholly  gra- 
tuitous. In  a  limited  sense  it  is  true,  that  Christ  represented  us ;  that 
is,  suffered  in  our  stead,  that  we  might  not  suffer ;  "  but  not  absolutely 
as  our  delegate,"  says  Baxter,  justly  ;  "  our  persons  did  not,  in  a  law 
sense,  do  in  and  by  Christ  what  he  did,  or  possess  the  habits  which 
he  possessed,  or  suffer  what  he  suffered."  {Gospel  Defended.)  The 
Scripture  doctrine  is,  indeed,  just  the  contrary.  It  is  never  said,  that 
we  suffered  in  Christ,  but  that  he  suffered  for  us ;  so  also  it  is  never 
taught  that  we  obeyed  in  Christ,  but  that,  through  his  entire  obedience 
to  a  course  of  subjection  and  suffering,  ending  in  his  death,  our  disobe- 
dience is  forgiven. 

3.  Nor  is  there  any  weight  in  the  argument,  that  as  our  sins  were 
accounted  his,  so  his  righteousness  js  accounted  ours.  Our  sins  were 
never  so  accounted  Christ's  as  that  he  did  them,  and  so  justly  suffered 
for  them.  This  is  a  monstrous  notion,  which  has  been  sometimes  pushed 
to  the  verge  of  blasphemy.  Our  transgressions  are  never  said  to  have 
been  imputed  to  him  in  the  fact,  but  only  that  they  were  laid  upon  him 
in  the  penalty.  To  be  God's  "  beloved  Son  in  whom  he  was  always 
well  pleased,"  and  to  be  reckoned,  imputed,  accounted  a  sinner,  de  factor 
are  manifest  contradictions. 

4.  This  whole  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  personal  moral 
obedience  to  believers,  as  their  own  personal  moral  obedience,  involves 
a  fiction  and  impossibility  inconsistent  with  the  Divine  attributes.  "  The 
judgment  of  the  all-wise  God  is  always  according  to  truth  ;  neither  can 
it  ever  consist  with  his  unerring  wisdom  to  think  that  I  am  innocent,  to 
judge  that  I  am  righteous  or  holy,  because  another  is  so.  He  can  no 
more  confound  me  with  Christ  than  with  David  or  Abraham."  {Wes- 
ley.)  But  a  contradiction  is  involved  in  another  view.  If  what  our 
Lord  was  and  did  is  to  be  accounted  to  us  in  the  sense  just  given,  then 
we  must  be  accounted  never  to  have  sinned,  because  Christ  never  sin- 
ned, and  yet  we  must  ask  for  pardon,  though  we  are  accounted  from 
birth  to  death,  to  have  fulfilled  God's  law  in  Christ ;  or  if  thev  should 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  217 

say,  that  when  we  ask  for  pardon  we  ask  only  for  a  revelation  to  us  of 
our  eternal  justification  or  pardon,  the  matter  is  not  altered,  for  what 
need  is  there  of  pardon,  in  time  or  eternity,  if  we  are  accounted  to  have 
perfectly  obeyed  God's  holy  law ;  and  why  should  we  be  accounted 
also. to  have  suffered,  in  Christ,  the  penalty  of  sins  which  we  are  ac- 
counted never  to  have  committed  ?  * 

5.  Another  objection  to  the  accounting  of  Christ's  personal  acts  as 
done  by  us  is,  that  they  were  of  a  loftier  character  than  can  be  sup- 
posed capable  of  being  accounted  the  acts  of  mere  creatures  ;  that,  in 
one  eminent  instance,  neither  the  act  could  be  required  of  us,  nor  the 
imputation  of  the  act  to  us  ;  and,  in  other  respects,  and  as  to  particular 
duties,  Christ's  personal  obedience  is  deficient,  and  cannot  be  therefore 
reckoned  to  our  account.  For  the  first,  Christ  was  God  and  man  united 
in  one  person,  a  circumstance  which  gave  a  peculiar  character  of  ful- 
ness and  perfection  to  his  obedience,  which  not  even  man,  in  his  state 
of  innocence,  can  be  supposed  capable  of  rendering.  "  He,  then,  that 
assumeth  this  righteousness  to  himself,"  says  Goodwin,  "  and  apparel- ' 
leth  himself  with  it,  represents  himself  before  God,  not  in  the  habit  of  a 
just  or  righteous  man,  but  in  the  glorious  attire  of  the  great  Mediator 
of  the  world,  whose  righteousness  hath  heights  and  depths  in  it,  a  length 
and  breadth  which  infinitely  exceed  the  proportions  of  all  men  whatever. 
Now,  then,  for  a  silly  v/orm  to  take  this  robe  of  immeasurable  majesty 
upon  him,  and  to  conceit  himself  as  great  in  holiness  and  righteousness 
as  Jesus  Christ,  (for  that  is  the  spirit  that  rules  in  this  opinion,  to  teach 
men  to  assume  all  that  Christ  did  unto  themselves,  and  that  in  no  other 
way,  nor  upon  any  lower  terms,  than  as  if  themselves  had  personally 
done  it,)  whether  this  be  right,  I  leave  to  sober  men  to  consider." 
(Treatise  on  Justification.)  For  the  second,  I  refer  to  our  Lord's  bap- 
tism by  John.  His  submission  to  this  ordinance  was  a  part  of  his  per- 
sonal righteousness,  and  it  is  strongly  marked  as  such  in  his  own  words 
addressed  to  John,  "  Sufter  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to 
fulfil  all  righteousness.''^  But  no  man  now  is  bound  to  submit  to  the 
baptism  of  John,  and  the  righteousness  of  doing  so,  whether  personally 
or  by  imputation,  is  superfluous.  This  may  also  be  applied  to  many 
other  of  the  acts  of  Christ ;  they  were  never  obligatory  upon  us,  and 
their  imputation  to  us  is  impossible  or  unnecessary.  For  the  third  case, 
the  personal  obedience  of  Christ  is,  as  to  particular  acts,  deficient,  and 
our  condition  could  not,  therefore,  be  provided  for  by  this  imputation. 
Suppose  us  guilty  of  violating  the  paternal  or  the  conjugal  duties,  the 
duties  of  servants,  or  of  magistrates,  with  many  others,  this  theory  is, 
that  we  are  justified  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  personal  acts  of  right- 
eousness to  us,  and  that  they  are  reckoned  to  us,  as  though  we  had 
ourselves  performed  them.  But  our  Lord,  never  having  stood  in  any 
of  these  relations,  never  acquired  a  personal  righteousness  of  this  kind 

2 


218  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  be  reckoned  as  done  by  us.  That  which  never  was  done  by  Christ 
cannot  be  imputed,  and  so  it  would  follow  that  we  can  never  be  forgiven 
such  dehnquencies.  If  it  be  said,  that  the  imputation  of  particular  acts 
is  not  necessary,  but  that  it  is  sufficient  if  men  have  a  righteousness 
imputed  to  them,  which  is  equivalent  to  them,  it  is  answered,  the  ^rict 
and  peremptory  nature  of  law  knows  nothing  of  this  doctrine  of  the 
equivalency  of  one  act  to  another.  The  suffering  of  an  unobliged  sub- 
stitute, where  such  a  provision  is  admitted,  may  be  an  equivalent  to  the 
suffering  of  the  offender ;  but  one  course  of  duties  cannot  be  accepted 
in  the  place  of  another  when  justification  is  placed  on  the  ground  of  the 
actual  fulfilment  of  the  law  by  a  delegate  in  the  place  of  the  delinquent, 
which  is  the  ground  on  which  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
active  righteousness  for  justification  places  it.  The  law  must  exact 
conformity  to  all  its  precepts  in  their  place  and  order,  and  he  that 
"  offends  in  one  is  guilty  of  all." 

6.  A  crowning  and  most  fatal  objection  is,  that  this  doctrine  shifts 
4he  meritorious  cause  of  man's  justification  from  Christ's  "  obedience 
unto  death,"  where  the  Scriptures  place  it,  to  Christ's  active  obedience 
to  the  precepts  of  the  law  ;  and  leaves  no  rational  account  of  the  reason 
of  Christ's  vicarious  sufferings.  To  his  "  blood"  the  New  Testament 
writers  ascribe  our  redemption,  and  "  faith  in  his  blood"  is  as  clearly 
held  out  as  the  instrumental  cause  of  our  justification ;  but  by  this  doc 
trine  the  attention  and  hope  of  men  are  perversely  turned  away  from  his 
sacrificial  death  to  his  holy  life,  which,  though  necessary,  both  as  an 
example  to  us,  and  also  so  to  qualify  his  sacrifice,  that  his  blood  should 
be  that  of  "  a  lamb  without  spot,"  is  nowhere  represented  as  that  on 
account  of  which  men  are  pardoned. 

Piscator,  though  a  Calvinist,  thus  treats  the  subject  in  scholastic  form. 
"  If  our  sins  have  been  expiated  by  the  obedience  of  the  fife  of  Christ, 
either  a  perfect  expiation  has  been  thus  made  for  all  of  them,  or  an 
imperfect  one  for  some  of  them.  The  first  cannot  be  asserted,  for  then 
it  would  follow  that  Christ  had  died  in  vain ;  for  as  he  died  to  expiate 
our  sins,  he  would  not  have  accounted  it  necessary  to  offer  such  an 
expiation  for  them,  if  they  had  been  already  expiated  by  the  obedience 
of  his  life.  And  the  latter  cannot  be  maintained,  because  Christ  has 
yielded  perfect  obedience  to  the  law  of  God,  wherefore,  if  he  have  per- 
formed that  for  the  expiation  of  our  sins,  he  must  necessarily,  through 
that  obedience,  have  expiated  all  of  them  perfectly.^''  Again,  "  If  Christ, 
by  the  obedience  of  his  Ufe,  had  rendered  satisfaction  to  God  for  our 
sins,  it  would  follow,  as  a  consequence,  that  God  is  unjust,  who  has 
made  an  additional  demand  to  receive  satisfaction  through  the  obedience 
of  deathy  and  thus  required  to  have  the  same  debt  paid  twice."  Again, 
"  If  Christ,  by  his  obedience  to  the  law,  has  merited  for  us  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  the  consequence  will  be,  that  the  remission  of  sins  was 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  219 

effected  without  the  shedding  of  blood  ;  but  without  shedding  of  blood 
no  remission  is  effected,  as  appears  from  Heb.  ix,  22  ;  therefore  Christ 
has  not  merited  for  us  the  remission  of  sins  by  the  obedience  which  he 
performed  to  the  law."  (7)  To  the  same  effect,  also,  is  a  passage  in 
Goodwin's  Treatise  on  Justification,  written  while  he  was  yet  a  Cal- 
vinist.  "  If  men  be  as  righteous  as  Christ  was  in  his  life,  there  was  no 
more  necessity  of  his  death  for  them,  than  there  was  either  of  his  own 
death,  or  the  death  of  any  other,  for  himself  If  we  were  perfectly  just 
or  righteous  in  him,  or  with  him,  in  his  hfe,  then  the  just  would  not  have 
died  for  the  unjust,  but  he  would  have  died  for  the  just,  for  whom  there 
was  no  necessity  fie  should  die.  This  reason  the  apostle  expressly  de- 
livers. Gal.  ii,  21,  *  If  righteousness  be  by  the  law,  then  Christ  died  in 
vain.'  I  desire  the  impartial  reader  to  observe  narrowly  the  force  of 
this  inference  made  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  righteousness,  or  justifica- 
tion, be  by  the  law,  then  Christ  died  in  vain.  Men  cannot  here  betake 
themselves  to  their  wonted  refuge,  to  say,  that  by  the  law,  is  to  be 
understood  the  works  of  the  law  as  performed  by  a  man's  self  in  person. 
For  if  by  the  word  law  in  this  place,  we  understand  the  works  of  the 
law  as  performed  by  Christ,  the  consequence  will  rise  up  with  the 
greater  strength  against  them.  If  righteousness  were  by  the  works  of 
the  law,  as  performed  by  Christ,  that  is,  if  the  imputation  of  them  were 
our  complete  righteousness,  the  death  of  Christ  for  us  had  been  in  vain, 
because  the  righteousness  of  his  hfe  imputed,  had  been  a  sufficient  and 
complete  righteousness  for  us." 

The  same  writer,  also,  powerfully  argues  against  the  same  doctrine 
from  its  confounding  the  two  covenants  of  works  and  grace.  "  It  is 
true,  many  that  hold  the  way  of  imputation  are  nothing  ashamed  of  this 
consequent,  the  confounding  the  two  covenants  of  God  with  men,  that 
of  works  with  that  of  grace.  These  conceive  that  God  never  made 
more  covenants  than  one  with  man  ;  and  that  the  Gospel  is  nothing  else 
but  a  gracious  aid  from  God  to  help  man  to  perform  the  covenant  of 
works :  so  that  the  life  and  salvation  which  are  said  to  come  by  Christ, 
in  no  other  sense  come  by  him,  but  as  he  fulfilled  that  law  of  works  for 
man  which  men  themselves  were  not  able  to  fulfil :  and  by  imputation, 
as  by  a  deed  of  gift,  he  makes  over  his  perfect  obedience  and  fulfilling 
of  the  law  to  those  that  believe  ;  so  that  they,  in  right  of  this  perfect 
obedience,  made  theirs  by  imputation,  come  to  inherit  life  and  salvation, 
according  to  the  strict  tenor  of  the  covenant  of  works — '  Do  this  and 
live.' 

"  But  men  may  as  well  say,  there  was  no  second  Adam,  really  dif- 
fering from  the  first ;  or  that  the  spirit  of  bondage  is  the  same  with  the 
Spirit  of  adoption.  If  the  second  covenant  of  grace  were  implicitly 
contained  in  the  first,  then  the  meaning  of  the  first  covenant,  conceived 

(7)  See  note  in  Nichol's  translation  of  the  works  of  Arminius,  vol.  i,  p.  634. 

2 


220  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

in  those  words,, '  Do  this  and  hve,'  must  be,  do  this,  either  by  thyself,  or 
by  another,  and  Hve.  There  is  no  other  way  to  reduce  them  to  the 
same  covenant. 

"  Again,  if  the  first  and  second  covenant  were  in  substance  the  same, 
then  must  the  conditions  in  both  be  the  same.  For  the  conditions  in  a 
covenant  are  as  essential  a  part  of  it  as  any  other  belonging  to  it. 
Though  there  be  the  same  parties  covenanting,  and  the  same  things 
covenanted  for  ;  yet  if  there  be  new  articles  of  agreement,  it  is  really 
another  covenant.  Now  if  the  conditions  be  the  same  in  both  those 
covenants,  then  to  do  this,  and  to  believe,  faith  and  works,  are  the  same  ; 
whereas  the  Scripture,  from  place  to  place,  makes  the  most  irreconcila- 
ble opposition  between  them.  But  some,  being  shy  of  this  consequence, 
hold  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  (in  the  sense  opposed)  and 
yet  demur  upon  an  identity  of  the  two  covenants.  Wherefore,  to  prove 
it,  I  thus  reason  :  Where  the  parties  covenanting  are  the  same,  and  the 
things  covenanted  for  the  same,  and  the  conditions  the  same,  there  the 
covenants  are  the  same.  But  if  the  righteousness  of  the  law  imputed 
to  us,  be  the  condition  of  the  new  covenant,  all  the  three,  persons, 
things,  conditions,  are  the  same.  Therefore  the  two  covenants,  first 
and  second,  the  old  and  the  new,  are  the  same ;  because  as  to  the  par- 
ties covenanting,  and  the  things  covenanted  for,  it  is  agreed,  on  both 
sides,  they  are  the  same. 

"  If  it  be  objected,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  imputed  from 
another,  and  wrought  by  a  man's  self,  are  two  different  conditions ;  and 
that,  therefore,  it  doth  not  follow,  that  the  covenants  are  the  same :  to 
this  I  answer,  the  substance  of  the  agreement  will  be  found  the  same 
notwithstanding ;  the  works,  or  righteousness  of  the  law  are  the  same, 
by  whomsoever  wrought.  If  Adam  had  fulfilled  the  law,  as  Christ  did, 
he  had  been  justified  by  the  same  righteousness,  wherewith  Christ  him- 
self v/as  righteous.  If  it  be  said,  that  imputation  in  the  second  covenant, 
which  was  not  in  the  first,  makes  a  difference  in  the  condition ;  I  an- 
swer, 1.  Imputation  of  works,  or  of  righteousness,  is  not  the  condition 
of  the  new  covenant,  but  believing.  If  imputation  were  the  condition, 
then  the  whole  covenant  would  lie  upon  God,  and  nothing  be  required 
on  the  creature's  part ;  for  imputation  is  an  act  of  God,  not  of  men.  2. 
If  it  were  granted,  that  the  righteousness,  or  the  works  of  the  law  im- 
puted from  Christ,  were  that*  whereby  we  are  justified,  yet  they  must 
justify,  not  as  imputed,  but  as  righteousness,  or  works  of  the  law. 
Therefore  imputation  makes  no  difference  in  this  respect.  Imputation 
can  be  no  part  of  that  righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified,  because 
it  is  no  conformity  with  any  law,  nor  with  any  part  or  branch  of  any 
law,  that  man  was  ever  bound  to  keep.  Therefore  it  can  be  no  part  of 
that  righteousness  by  which  he  is  justified.  So  that  the  condition  of 
both  covenants  will  be  found  the  same,  (and  consequently  both  cove- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  221 

nants  the  same,)  if  justification  be  maintained  by  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed." 

To  the  work  last  quoted  the  reader  may  be  referred  as  a  complete 
treatise  on  the  subject,  and  a  most  masterly  refutation  of  a  notion, 
which  he  and  other  Calvinistic  divines,  in  different  ages,  could  not  fail 
to  perceive  was  most  delusive  to  the  souls  of  men,  directly  destructive 
of  moral  obedience,  and  not  less  so  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  and  justification  by  "  faith  in  his  blood."  It  is  on 
this  ground  that  men  who  turn  the  grace  of  God  into  licentiousness, 
contend,  that  being  invested  with  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ, 
God  cannot  see  any  sin  in  them  ;  and,  indeed,  upon  their  own  principles, 
they  reason  conclusively.  Justice  has  not  to  do  with  them,  but  with 
Christ ;  it  demands  perfect  obedience,  and  Christ  has  rendered  that  per- 
fect obedience  for  them,  and  what  he  did  is  always  accounted  as  done 
by  them.  They  are,  therefore,  under  no  real  obligation  of  obedience  ; 
they  can  fear  no  penal  consequences  from  disobedience  ;  and  a  course 
of  the  most  flagrant  vice,  may  consist  with  an  entire  confidence  in  the 
indefeisible  favour  of  God,  with  the  profession  of  sonship  and  disci- 
pleship,  and  the  hope  of  heaven.  These  notions  many  shamelessly 
avow ;  and  they  have  been  too  much  encouraged  in  their  fatal  creed, 
by  those  who  have  held  the  same  system  substantially,  though  they  abhor 
the  bold  conclusions  which  the  open  Antinomian  would  drav/  from  it. 

The  doctrine  on  which  the  above  remarks  have  been  made,  is  the 
first  of  the  three  opinions  which  have  been  held  on  the  subject  of  the 
imputation  of  righteousness  in  our  justification.  The  second  is  the  opi- 
nion of  Calvin  himself,  and  those  of  his  followers,  who  have  not  refined 
so  much  upon  the  scheme  of  their  master  as  others,  and  with  them 
many  Arminians  have  also,  in  some  respects,  agreed  ;  not  that  they 
have  approved  the  terms  in  which  this  opinion  is  usually  expressed ; 
but  because  they  have  thought  it,  under  a  certain  interpretation,  right, 
and  one  which  would  allow  them,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  to  use 
either  the  phrase,  "  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,"  or 
"  the  imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness,"  which  latter  they  consider 
more  Scriptural,  and  therefore  interpret  the  former  so  as  to  be  consist- 
ent with  it. 

The  sentiments  of  Calvin  on  this  subject  may  be  collected  from  the 
following  passages  in  the  third  book  of  his  Institutes  : — 

"  We  simply  explain  justification  to  be  an  acceptance,  by  which  God 
receives  us  into  his  favour  and  esteems  us  as  righteous  persons,  and 
we  say  it  consists  in  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ."  '<  He  must  certainly  be  destitute  of  a  right- 
eousness of  his  own,  who  is  taught  to  seek  it  out  of  himself.  This  is 
most  clearly  asserted  by  the  apostle  when  he  says,  '-  He  hath  made  him 
to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteous- 

2 


222  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ness  of  God  in  him.'  We  see  that  our  righteousness  is  not  in  ourselves 
but  in  Christ.  '  As  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sin- 
ners, so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous.'  What 
is  placing  our  righteousness  in  the  obedience  of  Christ,  but  asserting 
that  we  are  accounted  righteous  only  because  his  obedience  is  accepted 
for  us  as  if  it  were  our  own  ?" 

In  these  passages,  the  wording  of  which  seems  at  first  sight  to  favour 
the  opinion  above  refuted,  there  is,  however,  this  marked  difference, 
that  there  is  no  separation  made  between  the  active  and  passive  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  his  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  moral  law,  and 
his  obedience  to  its  penalty  ;  so  that  one  is  imputed  in  our  justification 
for  one  purpose,  and  the  other  for  another  ;  one  to  take  the  place  of 
our  obligation  to  obey,  the  other  of  our  obligation  to  suffer  ;  but  the 
obedience  of  Christ  is  considered  as  oiie,  as  his  holy  life  and  sacrificial 
death  considered  together,  and  forming  that  righteousness  of  Christ 
which,  being  imputed  to  us,  we  are  "  reputed  righteous  before  God,  and 
not  of  ourselves."  This  is  farther  confirmed  by  the  strenuous  manner 
in  which  Calvin  proves,  that  justification  is  simply  the  remission,  or 
non-imputation  of  sin,  "  Whom,  therefore,  the  Lord  receives  into  fellow- 
ship with  him,  him  he  is  said  to  justify,  because  he  cannot  receive  any 
one  into  fellowship  with  himself  without  making  him  from  a  sinner  to 
be  a  righteous  person.  This  is  accomplished  by  the  remission  of  sins. 
For  if  they  whom  the  Lord  hath  reconciled  to  himself  be  judged  accord- 
ing to  their  works,  they  will  still  be  found  actually  sinners,  who,  not- 
withstanding, must  be  absolved  and  free  from  sin.  It  appears,  then, 
that  those  whom  God  receives,  are  made  righteous  no  otherwise  than  as 
they  are  purified  by  being  cleansed  from  all  their  defilements  by  the 
remission  of  sins  ;  so  that  such  a  righteousness  may,  in  one  word,  be 
denominated  a  remission  of  sins.  Both  these  points  are  fully  esta- 
blished by  the  language  of  Paul,  which  I  have  already  cited.  '  God 
was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their 
trespasses  unto  them  ;  and  hath  committed  to  us  the  word  of  reconcilia- 
tion.' Then  he  adds,  '  He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew 
no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him.'  The 
terms  righteousness  and  reconciliation  are  here  used  by  St.  Paul  indis- 
criminately^ to  teach  us  that  they  are  mutually  comprehended  in  each 
other.  And  he  states  the  manner  of  obtaining  this  righteousness  to 
consist  in  our  transgressions  not  being  imputed  to  us  ;  wherefore  we  can 
no  longer  doubt  how  God  justifies,  when  we  hear  that  he  reconciles  us 
to  himself  by  not  imputing  our  sins  to  us."  «  So  Paul,  in  preaching  at 
Antioch,  says,  '  Through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  by  him  all  .that  believe  are  justified.'  The  apostle  thus  con- 
nects 'forgiveness  of  sins'  with  'justification,'  to  show  that  they  are 
identically  the  same."  {Institutes,  lib.  3,  cap.  xi.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  223 

This  simple  notion  of  justification  as  the  remission  of  sins,  could  not 
have  been  nmintained  by  Calvin  had  he  held  the  notion  of  a  distinct 
imputation  of  Christ's  active  righteousness  ;  for  it  has  always  followed 
from  that  notion,  that  they  who  have  held  it  represent  justification  as 
consisting  of  two  parts,  first,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  then  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  moral  obedience,  so  that  he  who  is  forgiven  may 
be  considered  personally  righteous,  and  thus,  when  both  meet,  he  is 
justified.  (8) 

The  view  taken  by  Calvin  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness 
in  justification,  is  obviously,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that  is,  his 
entire  obedience  to  the  will  of  his  Father  both  in  doing  and  suffering,  is, 
as  he  says,  "  accepted  for  us,  as  though  it  were  our  own ;"  so  that,  in 
virtue  of  it  upon  our  believing,  we  are  accounted  righteous,  not  per- 
sonally, but  by  the  remission,  or  non-imputation  of  our  sins.  Thus,  he 
observes  on  Acts  xiii,  38,  39,  "  The  justification  which  we  have  by  Christ 
in  the  Gospel,  is  not  a  justification  with  righteousness ^  properly  so  called, 
but  a  justification  from  sin,  and  from  the  guilt  of  sin  and  condemnation 
due  to  it.  So  when  Christ  said  to  men  and  women  in  the  Gospel,  '  Thy 
sins  are  forgiven  thee,'  then  he  justified  them — the  forgiveness  of  their 
sins  was  their  justification." 

Calvin,  however,  like  many  of  his  followers,  who  adopt  no  views 
on  this  subject  substantially  different  from  their  master,  uses  figurative 
terms  and  phrases,  which  somewhat  obscure  his  real  meaning,  and 
give  much  countenance  to  the  Antinomian  doctrine ;  but  then,  so 
little,  it  has  been  thought,  can  be  objected  to  the  opinion  of  Calvin, 
in  the  article  of  imputed  righteousness,  in  the  main,  that  many  divines, 
opposed  to  the  Calvinian  theory  generally,  have  not  hesitated,  in  sub- 
stance, to  assent  to  it,  reserving  to  themselves  some  liberty  in  the  use 
of  the  terms  in  which  it  is  often  enveloped,  either  to  modify,  explain,  or 
reject  them. 

Thus  Arminius: — "I  believe  that  sinners  are  accounted  righteous 
solely  by  the  obedience  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
the  only  meritorious  cause  on  account  of  which  God  pardons  the  sins  of 
believers,  and  reckons  them  as  righteous  as  if  they  had  perfectly  ful- 
filled the  law.  But  since  God  imputes  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to 
none  except  believers,  I  conclude,  that,  in  this  sense,  it  may  be  well  and 
properly  said,  to  a  man  who  believes,  faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness, 
through  grace,  because  God  hath  set  forth  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  to  be  a 
propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood.  Whatever  interpretation  may 
be  put  upon  these  expressions,  none  of  our  divines  blame  Calvin,  or  con- 
sider him  to  be  heterodox  on  this  point ;  yet  my  opinion  is  not  so  widely 
different  from  his,  as  to  prevent  me  employing  the  signature  of  my  own 

(^)  "  To  be  released  from  the  damnatory  sentence  is  one  thing,  to  be  treated 
as  a  righteous  person,  is  evidently  another."  (Hervey's  Tkeron  and  Aspasw.) 

2 


224  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

hand  in  subscribing  to  those  things  which  he  has  delivered  on  this  sub- 
ject, in  the  third  book  of  his  Institutes."  {NicholVs  Arminius.) 

So  also  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  sermon,  entitled,  "  The  Lord  our  Right- 
eousness," almost  repeats  Arminius's  words  ;  but  though  these  eminent 
divines  seem  to  agree  substantially  with  Calvin,  it  is  clear  that,  in  their 
interpretation  of  the  phrase,  the  "  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,"  he 
would  not  entirely  follow  them.  "  As  the  active  and  passive  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  were  never  in  fact  separated  from  each  other,  so  we 
never  need  separate  them  at  all.  It  is  with  regard  to  both  these  con- 
jointly, that  Jesus  is  called  '  the  Lord  our  righteousness.'  But  when 
is  this  righteousness  imputed  ?  When  they  believe.  In  that  very  hour 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  theirs.  It  is  imputed  to  every  one  that 
believes,  as  soon  as  he  believes.  But  in  what  sense  is  this  righteousness 
imputed  to  believers  ?  In  this  ;  all  believers  are  forgiven  and  accepted, 
not  for  the  sake  of  any  thing  in  them,  or  of  any  thing  that  ever  was, 
that  is,  or  ever  can  be  done  by  them,  but  wholly  for  the  sake  of  what 
Christ  hath  done  and  suffered  for  them.  But  perhaps  some  will  affirm, 
that  faith  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness.  St.  Paul  affirms  this, 
therefore  I  affirm  it  too.  Faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness  to  every 
believer,  namely,  faith  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  but  this  is  exactly 
the  same  thing  which  has  been  said  before  ;  for  by  that  expression  I 
mean  neither  more  nor  less  than  that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  not  by 
works,  or  that  every  believer  is  forgiven  and  accepted,  merely  for  the 
sake  of  what  Christ  had  done  and  suffered."  (Sermons.) 

In  this  sermon,  which  is  one  of  peace,  one  in  which  he  shows  how 
near  he  was  willing  to  approach  those  who  held  the  doctrine  of  Calvin 
on  this  subject,  the  author  justly  observes,  that  the  terms  themselves,  in 
which  it  is  often  expressed,  are  liable  to  abuse,  and  intimates,  that  they 
had  better  be  dispensed  with.  This  every  one  must  feel ;  for  it  is  clear 
that  such  figurative  expressions,  as  being  clothed  with  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  and  appearing  before  God  as  invested  in  it,  so  that  no  fault 
can  be  laid  to  our  charge,  are  modes  of  speech,  which,  though  used  by 
Calvin  and  his  followers  of  the  moderate  school,  and  by  some  evangeli- 
cal Arminians,  who  mainly  agree  with  them  on  the  subject  of  man's 
justification,  are  much  more  appropriate  to  the  doctrine  of  the  imputa- 
tion  of  Christ's  active  righteousness,  as  held  by  the  higher  Calvinists, 
and  by  Antinomians,  than  to  any  other.  The  truth  of  the  case  is,  that 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  held  by  such  Calvinists  in  a 
proper  sense,  by  evangelical  Arminians  in  an  improper  or  accommo- 
dated sense  ;  and  that  Calvin  and  his  real  followers,  though  nearer  to 
the  latter  than  the  former,  do  not  fully  agree  with  either.  If  the  same 
phrases,  therefore,  be  used,  they  are  certainly  understood  in  different 
senses,  or,  by  one  party  at  least,  with  hmitations  ;  and  if  it  can  be 
shown,  that  neither  is  the  "  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,"  in  any 
2 


SECOAD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  225 

good  sense  expressed  or  implied  in  Scripture,  and  that  the  phrases, 
being  clothed  and  invested  with  his  righteousness,  are  not  used  with  any 
reference  to  justification,  it  seems  preferable,  at  least  when  we  are  inves- 
tigating truth,  to  discard  them  at  once,  and  fully  to  bring  out  the  testi- 
mony  of  Scripture  on  the  doctrine  of  imputation. 

The  question  then  will  be,  not  whether  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness  is  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  Antinomians,  which  has 
been  sufficiently  refuted ;  but  whether  there  is  any  Scripture  authority 
for  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  as  it  is  understood  by  Calvin, 
and  admitted,  though  with  some  hesitancy,  and  with  explanations,  by 
Arminius  and  some  others. 

With  Calvin  the  notion  of  imputation  seems  to  be,  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  that  is,  his  entire  obedience  to  the  will  of  his  Father,  both 
in  doing  and  suffering,  is,  upon  our  believing,  imputed,  or  accounted  to 
us,  or  accepted  for  us,  "  as  though  it  were  our  ow?f."  From  which  we 
may  conclude,  that  he  admitted  some  kind  of  transfer  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  to  our  account,  and  that  believers  are  considered  so  to  be 
in  Christ,  as  that  he  should  answer  for  them  in  law,  and  plead  his  right- 
eousness in  default  of  theirs.  All  this,  we  grant,  is  capable  of  being 
interpreted  to  a  good  and  Scriptural  sense ;  but  it  is  also  capable  of  a 
contrary  one.  The  opinion  of  some  professedly  Calvinistic  divines  ;  of 
Baxter  and  his  followers  ;  and  of  the  majority  of  evangelical  Arminians, 
is,  as  Baxter  well  expresses  it,  that  Christ's  righteousness  is  imputed  to 
us  in  the  sense  "  of  its  being  accounted  of  God  the  valuable  considera- 
tion, satisfaction,  and  merit,  (attaining  God's  ends,)  for  which  we  are 
(when  we  consent  to  the  covenant  of  grace)  forgiven  and  justified, 
against  the  condemning  sentence  of  the  law  of  innocency,  and  accounted 
and  accepted  of  God  to  grace  and  glory."  [Breviate  of  Controversies.) 
So  also  Goodwin  :  "  If  we  take  the  phrase  of  imputing  Christ's  right- 
eousness improperly,  viz.  for  the  bestowing,  as  it  were,  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  including  his  obedience,  as  well  passive  as  active,  in  the 
return  of  it,  i.  e.  in  the  privileges,  blessings,  and  benefits  purchased  by 
it,  so  a  behever  may  be  said  to  be  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
imputed.  But  then  the  meaning  can  be  no  more  than  this :  God  justifies 
a  believer  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  for  any  right- 
eousness of  his  own.  Such  an  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
as  this,  is  no  way  denied  or  questioned."  (On  Justif  cation.) 

Between  these  opinions,  as  to  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  it  will  be  seen,  that  there  is  a  manifest  difference,  which  differ- 
ence  arises  from  the  different  senses  in  which  the  term  imputation  is 
taken.  The  latter  takes  it  in  the  sense  of  accounting  or  allowing  to  the 
behever  the  benefit  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  the  other  in  the  sense 
of  reckoning  or  accounting  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  ours  ;  that  is, 
what  he  did  and  suffered  is  regarded  as  done  and  suffered  by  us.     "  It 

Vol.  II.  15 


226  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

is  accepted,"  says  Calvin,  "  as  though  it  were  our  own ;"  so  that  though 
Calvin  does  not  divide  the  active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ,  nor 
make  justification  any  thing  more  than  the  remission  of  sin,  yet  his 
opinion  easily  slides  into  the  Antinomian  notion,  and  lays  itself  open  to 
several  of  the  same  objections,  and  especially  to  this,  that  it  involves  the 
same  kind  of  fiction,  that  what  Christ  did  or  suffered,  is,  in  any  sense 
whatever,  considered  by  him  who  knows  all  things  as  they  are,  as  being 
done  or  suffered  by  any  other  person,  than  by  him  who  did  or  suffered  it 
in  fact. 

For  this  notion,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  so  imputed  as  to 
be  accounted  our  own,  there  is  no  warrant  in  the  word  of  God ;  and  a 
slight  examination  of  those  passages,  which  are  indifferently  adduced  to 
support  either  the  Antinomian  or  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the  subject,  will 
suffice  to  demonstrate  this. 

Psalm  xxxii,  1  :  "  Blessed  is  the  man  whose  transgression  is  forgiven, 
whose  sin  is  covered."  The  covering  of  sin  here  spoken  of,  is  by  some 
considered  to  be  the  investment  of  the  sinner  with  the  righteousness  or 
obedience  of  Christ.  But  this  is  entirely  gratuitous,  for  the  forgiveness 
of  sin,  even  by  the  legal  atonements,  is  called,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
idiom,  (though  another  verb  is  used,)  to  cover  sin ;  and  the  latter  part 
of  the  sentence  is  clearly  a  parallelism  to  the  former.  This  is  the  inter- 
pretation of  Luther  and  of  Calvin  himself.  To  forgive  sin,  to  cover  sin, 
and  not  to  impute  sin,  are  in  this  psalm  all  phrases  obviously  of  the  same 
import,  and  no  other  kind  of  imputation  but  the  non-imputation  of  sin  is 
mentioned  in  it.  And,  indeed,  the  passage  will  not  serve  the  purpose 
of  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  active  right- 
eousness, on  their  own  principles ;  for  sin  cannot  be  covered  by  the  im- 
putation of  Christ's  active  righteousness,  since  they  hold  that  it  is  taken 
away  by  the  imputation  of  his  death,  and  that  the  office  of  Christ's  active 
righteousness  is  not  to  take  away  sin  ;  but  to  render  us  personally  and 
positively  holy  by  imputation  and  the  fiction  of  a  transfer. 

Jer.  xxiii,  6,  and  xxxiii,  16  :  "  And  this  is  the  name  whereby  he  shall 
be  called,  The  Lord  our  Righteousness."  This  passage  also  proves 
nothing  to  the  pomt,  for  it  is  neither  said  that  the  righteousness  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  our  righteousness,  nor  that  it  shall  be  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness,  but  simply,  that  the  name  by  which  he  shall  be  called,  or 
acknowledged,  shall  be  the  Lord  our  Righteousness,  that  is,  the  Author 
and  Procurer  of  our  righteousness  or  justification  before  God.  So  he 
is  said  to  be  "  the  Resurrection,"  "  our  Life,"  "  our  Peace,"  &c,  as  the 
author  of  these  blessings ;  for  who  ever  dreamt  that  Christ  is  the  life, 
the  resurrection,  the  peace  of  his  people  by  imputation  ?  or  that  we  live 
by  being  accounted  to  live  in  him,  or  are  raised  from  the  dead  by  being 
accounted  to  have  risen  in  him  ? 

"  Some,"  says  Goodwin,  "  have  digged  for  the  treasure  of  imputation 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGiCAL    INSTITUTE^.  227 

in  Isaiah  xlv,  24,  '  Surely  shall  one  say,  in  the  Lord  have  I  righteous- 
ness and  strength.'  But,  first,  neither  is  there  here  the  least  breathing 
of  that  imputation  so  much  wandered  after,  nor  do  I  find  any  intimation 
given  of  any  such  business  by  any  sound  expositor.  Secondly,  the  plain 
and  direct  meaning  of  the  place  is,  that  when  God  should  communicate 
the  knov/ledge  of  himself,  in  his  Son,  to  the  world,  his  people  should 
have  this  sense  of  the  means  of  their  salvation  and  peace,  that  they 
receive  them  of  the  free  grace  of  God,  and  not  of  themselves,  or  by 
the  merit  of  their  own  righteousness.  And  Calvin's  exposition  is  to  this 
effect : — '  Because  righteousness  and  strength  are  the  two  main  points  of 
our  salvation,  the  faithful  acknowledge  God  to  be  the  author  of  both.' " 

With  respect  to  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  Jewish  or 
Christian  Churches,  or  their  individual  members  being  "  clothed  with 
garments  of  salvation,"  "robes  of  righteousness,"  "white  linen,  the  right- 
eousness of  the  saints,"  of  of  "puttmg  on  Christ;"  a  class  of  texts  on 
which,  from  their  mere  sound,  the  advocates  of  imputed  righteousness 
ring  so  many  changes,  the  use  which  is  thus  made  of  them  shows 
either  great  inattention  to  the  context,  or  great  ignorance  of  the  princi- 
ples of  criticism  : — the  former,  because  the  context  will  show  that  either 
those  passages  relate  to  temporal  deliverances,  and  external  blessings ; 
or  else,  not  to  justification,  but  to  habitual  and  practical  sanctification, 
and  to  the  honours  and  rewards  of  the  saints  in  glory : — the  latter,  be- 
cause nothing  is  more  common  in  language  than  to  represent  good  or 
evil  liabits  by  clean  or  filthy,  by  soiled  or  resplendent  vestments,  by 
nakedness  or  by  clothing  ;  and  this  is  especially  the  case  in  the  Hebrew- 
language,  because  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  by  changing  their 
garments  to  express  the  changes  in  their  condition.  They  put  on  sack- 
cloth, or  laid  aside  their  upper  robe,  (which  is,  in  Scripture  style,  called 
making  themselves  naked,)  or  rent  their  garments,  when  personal  or 
national  afflictions  came  upon  them ;  and  they  arrayed  themselves  in 
white  and  adorned  apparel,  in  seasons  of  festivity,  and  after  great  de- 
hverances.  In  all  these  figurative  expressions  there  is,  however,  nothing 
which  countenances  the  notion  that  Christ's  righteousness  is  a  robe 
thro\\Ti  upon  sinful  men,  to  hide  from  the  eye  of  justice  their  natural 
squalidness  and  pollution,  and  to  give  them  confidence  in  the  presence 
of  God.     No  interpretation  can  be  more  fanciful  and  unfounded. 

Romans  iii,  21,  22,  "But  now  the  righteousness  of  God,  without  the 
law,  is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets,  even 
the  righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ."  The 
righteousness  of  God  here  is,  by  some,  taken  to  signify  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imputed  to  them  that  believe.  But  the  very  text  makes 
it  evident,  that  by  "the  righteousness  of  God,"  the  righteousness  of  the 
Father  is  meant,  for  he  is  distinguished  from  "  Jesus  Christ,"  mentioned 
immediately  afterward  ;    and  by  the  righteousness  of  God,  it  is  also 

2 


228  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

plain,  that  his  rectoral  justice  in  the  administration  of  pardon,  is  meant, 
which,  of  course,  is  not  thought  capable  of  imputation.  This  is  made 
idubitable  by  the  verse  which  follows,  "  to  declare  at  this  time  his  right, 
eousness,  that  he  might  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  beUeveth  on 
Jesus." 

The  phrase,  the  righteousness  of  God,  in  this  and  several  other  pas- 
sages in  St.  Paul's  writings,  obviously  means  God's  righteous  method 
of  justifying  sinners  through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  instru  mentally, 
by  faith.  This  is  the  grand  peculiarity  of  the  Gospel  scheme,  the  ful- 
ness at  once  of  its  love  and  its  wisdom,  that  "  the  righteousness  of  God 
is  manifested  without  law ;"  and  that  without  either  an  enforcement  of 
the  penalty  of  the  violated  law  upon  the  personal  offender ;  which  would 
have  cut  him  off  from  hope ;  or  without  making  his  justification  to  de- 
pend upon  works  of  obedience  to  the  law,  (which  was  the  only  method 
of  justification  admitted  by  the  Jews  of  St.  Paul's  day,)  and  which  obe- 
dience was  impossible,  and  therefore  hopeless ;  he  can  yet,  in  perfect 
consistency  with  his  justice  and  righteous  administration,  offer  pardon 
to  the  guilty.  No  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  apostle,  who  discourses 
professedly  on  this  subject,  should  lay  so  great  a  stress  upon  it,  and  that 
his  mind,  always  full  of  a  subject  so  great  and  glorious,  should  so  often 
advert  to  it  incidentally,  as  well  as  in  his  regular  discourses  on  the  justi- 
fication of  man  in  the  sight  of  God.  Thus  he  gives  it  as  a  reason  why 
he  was  not  ashamed  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  that  "  therein  is  the  right, 
eousness  of  God  revealed  from  faith  to  faith ;  as  it  is  written,  the  just 
shall  live  by  faith,"  Rom.  i,  17.  Thus,  again,  in  contrasting  God's 
method  of  justifying  the  ungodly  with  the  error  of  the  Jews,  by  whom 
justification  was  held  to  be  the  acquittal  of  the  righteous  or  obedient,  he 
says,  "  for  they  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and  going  about 
to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  have  not  submitted  themselves  to 
the  righteousness  of  God,"  Rom.  x,  3.  The  same  contrast  we  have  in 
Phil,  iii,  9,  "  Not  having  mine  own  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  God  byfaith.^^  In  all  these  passages  the  righteousness  of 
God  manifestly  signifies,  his  righteous  method  of  justifying  them  that 
beUeve  in  Christ.  No  reference  at  all  is  made  to  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  to  such  persons,  and  much  less  is  any  distinction 
set  up  between  his  active  and  passive  righteousness. 

1  Cor.  i,  30,  "  But  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made 
unto  us  wisdom  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification  and  redemption.'* 
Here,  also,  to  say  that  Christ  is  "  made  unto  us  righteousness,"  by 
imputation,  is  to  invent  and  not  to  interpret.  This  is  clear,  that  he  is 
made  unto  us  righteousness  only  as  he  is  made  unto  us  "  redemption," 
so  that  if  we  are  not  redeemed  by  imputation,  we  are  not  justified  by 
imputation.  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  Christ  is  made  to  ue,- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  229 

by  the  appointment  of  God,  the  sole  means  of  instruction,  justification, 
sanctification,  and  eternal  life. 

2  Cor.  V,  21,  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no 
sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  To  be 
made  sin,  we  have  already  shown,  signifies  to  be  made  an  offering  for 
sin  ;  consequently,  as  no  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ  is  here  men- 
tioned,  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  notion,  that  there  is  a  reciprocal 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us.  The  text  is  wholly  silent 
on  this  subject,  for  it  is  wholly  gratuitous  to  say,  that  we  are  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  or  through  Christ,  by  imputation  or  reckoning 
to  us  what  he  did  or  suffered  as  our  acts  or  sufferings.  The  passages 
we  have  already  adduced  will  explain  the  phrase,  "  the  righteousness 
of  God"  in  this  place.  This  righteousness,  with  respect  to  our  pardon, 
is  God's  righteous  method  of  justifying,  through  the  atonement  of  Christ, 
and  our  being  made  or  becoming  this  righteousness  of  God  in  or  by 
Christ,  is  our  becoming  righteous  persons  through  the  pardon  of  our  sins 
in  this  peculiar  method,  by  renouncing  our  own  righteousness,  and  by 
"submitting  to  this  righteousness  of  God." 

Rom.  V,  18,  19,  "As  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  Hfe.  For  as  by  one  man's  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall 
many  be  made  righteous."  That  this  passage,  though  generally  de- 
pended upon  in  this  controversy,  as  the  most  decisive  in  its  evidence  in 
favour  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose  may 
be  thus  demonstrated.  It  proves  nothing  in  favour  of  the  imputation 
of  Christ's  active  righteousness.     For, 

1.  Here  is  nothing  said  of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  as  distin, 
guished  from  his  obedient  suffering,  and  which  might  lead  us  to  attribute 
the  free  gift  of  justification  to  the  former,  rather  than  to  the  latter. 

2.  If  the  apostle  is  supposed  to  speak  here  of  the  active  obedience  of 
Christ,  as  distinguished  from  his  sufferings,  his  death  is  of  course 
excluded  from  the  work  of  justification.  But  this  cannot  be  allowed, 
because  the  apostle  has  intimated,  in  the  same  chapter,  that  we  are 
"justified  by  his  blood,"  Rom.  v,  9,  and,  therefore^  it  cannot  be  allowed 
that  he  is  speaking  of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  as  distinguished 
from  his  passive. 

3.  As  the  apostle  has  unequivocally  decided,  that  we  are  justified  by 
the  blood  of  Christ,  or,  in  other  words,  "  that  we  are  justified  through 
the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  hath  set  forth  a 
propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood,"  (a  thing  which  the  doctrine 
under  examination  supposes  to  be  impossible,)  there  is  reason  to  con- 
clude that  he  speaks  here  of  his  passive,  rather  than  of  his  active  obe- 
dience.    "  If,  indeed,  his  willingness  to  suffer  for  our  sins  were  never 

8 


230  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

spoken  of  as  an  act  of  obedience,  such  an  observation  might  have  the 
appearance  of  a  mere  expedient  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty.  But  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  this  should  prove  to  be  the  very  spirit  and  letter  of 
Scripture,  the  justness  of  it  will  be  obvious.  Hear,  then,  our  Lord  him- 
self on  this  subject.  '  Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I 
lay  down  my  life,  that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh  it  from 
me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself :  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I 
have  power  to  take  it  again.  This  commandment  have  I  received  of  my 
Father,'  John  x,  17,  18.  This,  then,  was  the  commandment  to  which 
he  rendered  willing  obedience,  when  he  said,  '  O  my  Father,  if  this  cup 
may  not  pass  away  from  me,  except  I  drink  it,  thy  will  be  done,'  Matt, 
xxvi,  42.  '  The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink 
it?'  John  xviii,  11.  In  conformity  with  this,  the  apostle  applies  to 
him  the  following  words  :  '  Wherefore  when  he  cometh  into  the  world, 
he  saith,  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou 
prepared  me.  Then  said  I,  Lo  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God.  By 
(his  performance  of)  which  will  we  are  sanctified ;  through  the  offering 
of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all,'  Heb.  x,  5,  10.  'Being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  (says  St.  Paul,)  he  became  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross,'  Phil,  ii,  8.  Such  was  his  obedience,  an 
obedience  unto  the  death  of  the  cross.  And  by  this  his  obedience  unto 
the  death  of  the  cross,  shall  many  be  constituted  righteous,  or  be  justi- 
fied. Where,  then,  is  the  imputation  of  his  active  obedience  for  justifi- 
cation ?"  {Hare  on  Justification.) 

It  proves  nothing  in  favour  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness considered  as  one,  and  including  what  he  did  and  suffered,  in  the 
sense  of  its  being  reputed  our  righteousness,  by  transfer  or  by  fiction  of 
law.  For  though  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity  is  sup- 
posed to  be  taught  in  this  chapter,  and  the  imputation  of  Christ's  obe- 
dience in  one  or  other  of  the  senses  above  given,  is  argued  from  this 
particular  text,  the  examination  of  the  subject  will  show  that  the  right 
understanding  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  wholly  overthrows  both 
the  Antinomian  and  Calvinistic  view  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness. This  argument  is  very  ably  developed  by  Goodwin.  {Trea- 
tise on  Justification.) 

"  Because  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  is  frequently 
produced  to  prove  the  imputation  of  Chrisfs  righteousness ;  I  shall  lay 
down,  with  as  much  plainness  as  I  can,  in  what  sense  the  Scriptures 
countenance  that  imputation.  The  Scriptures  own  no  other  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  than  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  those 
that  believe.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed,  or  given  to  those 
that  believe,  not  in  the  letter  or  formality  of  it,  but  in  blessings,  privi- 
leges, and  benefits  purchased  of  God  by  the  merit  of  it.  So  the  sin  of 
Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity,  not  in  the  letter  and  fqrmality  of  it, 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  231 

(which  IS  the  imputation  commonly  urged,)  but  in  the  demerit  of  it,  that 
is,  in  the  curse  or  punishment  due  to  it.  Therefore,  as  concerning  this 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  I  answer, 

"  First,  the  Scripture  nowhere  affirms,  either  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  to  his  posterity,  or  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  those  that  be- 
lieve ;  neither  is  such  a  manner  of  speaking  any  ways  agreeable  to  the 
language  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  for  in  the  Scriptures,  wheresoever  the 
term  imputing  is  used,  it  is  only  applied  to,  or  spoken  of  something  of 
the  same  persons,  to  whom  the  imputation  is  said  to  be  made,  and  never, 
to  my  remembrance,  to,  or  of  any  thing  of  another's.  So,  Rom.  iv,  3, 
*  Abraham  beheved  God,  and  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness,' 
that  is,  his  own  believing  was  imputed  to  him,  not  another  man's.  So, 
verse  5,  but  '  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth,  his  faith  is  imputed 
to  him  for  righteousness.'  So,  Psalm  cvi,  30,  31,  '  Phineas  stood  up 
and  executed  judgment,  and  that'  (act  of  his)  *  was  imputed  to  him  for 
righteousness,'  that  is,  received  a  testimony  from  God  of  being  a  right- 
eous act.  So  again,  2  Cor.  v,  1 9,  '  not  imputing  their  trespasses,'  (their 
own  trespasses,)  '  unto  them.' 

"  Secondly,  When  a  thing  is  said  simply  to  be  imputed,  as  sin,  folly, 
and  so  righteousness,  the  phrase  is  not  to  be  taken  concerning  the  bare 
acts  of  the  things,  as  if  (for  example)  to  impute  sin  to  a  man,  signified 
this,  to  repute  the  man,  (to  whom  sin  is  imputed,)  to  have  committed  a 
sinful  act,  or,  as  if  to  impute  folly,  were  simply  to  charge  a  man  to  have 
done  foolishly  :  but  when  it  is  applied  to  things  that  are  evil,  and  attri- 
buted to  persons  that  have  power  over  those,  to  whom  the  imputation  is 
made,  it  signifieth,  the  charging  the  guilt  of  what  is  imputed  upon  the 
head  of  the  person  to  whom  the  imputation  is  made,  with  an  intent  of 
inflicting  some  condign  punishment  upon  him.  So  that  to  impute  sin  (in 
Scripture  phrase)  is  to  charge  the  guilt  of  sin  upon  a  man  with  a  pur- 
pose to  punish  him  for  it.  Thus  Rom.  v,  13,  sin  is  said,  'not  to  be 
imputed  where  there  is  no  law.'  The  meaning  cannot  be,  that  the  act 
which  a  man  doth,  whether  there  be  a  law  or  no  law,  should  not  be 
imputed  to  him.  The  law  doth  not  make  any  act  to  be  imputed,  or 
ascribed  to  a  man,  which  might  not  as  well  have  been  imputed  without 
it.  But  the  meaning  is,  that  there  is  no  guilt  charged  by  God  upon 
men,  nor  any  punishment  inflicted  for  any  thing  done  by  them,  but  only 
by  virtue  of  the  law  prohibiting.  In  which  respect  the  law  is  said  to 
be  the  strength  of  sin,  because  it  gives  a  condemnirig  power  against  the 
doer,  to  that  which  otherwise  would  have  had  none,  1  Cor.  xv,  56. 
So  again.  Job  xxiv,  12,  when  it  is  said,  'God  doth  not  lay  folly  to  the 
charge  of  them,  (i.  e.  impute  folly  to  them,)  that  make  the  souls  of  the 
slain  to  cry  out,'  the  meaning  is,  not  that  God  doth  not  repute  them  to 
have  committed  the  acts  of  oppression,  or  murder.  For  supposing  they 
did  such  things,  it  is  impossible  but  God  should  repute  them  to  have  don^ 


232  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

them :  but  that  God  doth  not  visibly  charge  the  guilt  of  these  sins  upon 
them,  or  inflict  punishment  for  them.  So,  2  Sam.  xix,  19,  when  Shimei 
prayeth  David  not  to  impute  wickedness  unto  him,  his  meaning  is,  not 
to  desire  David  not  to  think  he  had  done  wickedly  in  railing  upon  him, 
(for  himself  confesseth  this  in  the  very  next  words,)  but  not  to  inflict  the 
punishment  which  that  wickedness  deserved.  So  when  David  himself 
pronounceth  the  man  blessed  to  whom  tlie  Lord  imputeth  not  sin,  his 
meaning  is,  not  tliat  there  is  any  man,  whom  the  Lord  would  not  repute 
to  have  committed  those  acts  of  sin,  which  he  has  committed ;  but  that 
such  are  blessed  on  whom  God  will  not  charge  the  demerit  of  their  sins 
in  the  punishment  due  to  them.  So  yet  again,  (to  forbear  farther  cita- 
tions,) 2  Cor.  V,  19,  when  God  is  said,  '  not  to  impute  their  sins  unto 
men,'  the  meaning  is,  not  that  God  should  not  repute  men  to  have  com- 
mitted such  and  such  sins  against  him ;  but  that  he  freely  discharges 
them  from  the  punishment  due  to  them.  By  all  which  testimonies  from 
Scripture,  concerning  the  constant  use  of  the  term  imputing,  or  imputa- 
tion, it  is  evident  that  proposition,  *  that  the  transgression  of  the  law  is 
imputable  from  one  person  to  another,'  hath  no  foundation  in  Scripture. 

"  And,  therefore,  thirdly  and  lastly,  to  come  home  to  the  imputation 
of  Adam^s  sin  to  his  posterity,  I  answer, 

"  First,  that  either  to  say  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed 
to  his  posterity  (of  believers)  or  the  sin  of  Adam  to  his,  are  both  ex- 
pressions, at  least,  unknown  to  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Scriptures.  There 
is  neither  word,  nor  syllable,  nor  letter,  nor  tittle  of  any  such  thing  to  be 
found  there.  But  that  the  faith  of  him  that  believeih,  is  imputed  for 
righteousness,  are  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  useth. 

"  But,  secondly,  because  I  would  make  no  exceptions  against  words, 
farther  than  necessity  enforceth,  I  grant,  there  are  expressions  in  Scrip- 
ture concerning  both  the  communication  of  Adam's  sin  with  his  pos- 
terity, and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  with  those  that  believe,  that  will 
fairly  enough  bear  the  term  of  imputation,  if  it  be  rightly  understood, 
and  according  to  the  use  of  it  in  Scripture  upon  other  occasions.  But 
as  it  is  commonly  taken  and  understood  by  many,  it  occasions  much 
error  and  mistake. 

"  Concerning  Adam's  sin  or  disobedience,  ma7iy  are  said  to  be  '  made 
sinners  by  it,"*  Rom.  v,  19.  And  so  'by  the  obedience  of  Christ,'  it  is 
said  (in  the  same  place)  *  that  niany  shall  be  made  righteous.'  But  if 
men  will  exchange  language  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  must  see  that 
they  make  him  no  loser.  If,  when  they  say,  *  Adam's  sin  is  imputed 
to  all  unto  condemnation,'  their  meaning  be  the  same  with  the  Holy 
Ghost's,  when  he  saith,  '  that  by  the  disobedience  of  one,  many  were 
made  sinners,'  there  is  no  harm  done  :  but  it  is  evident  by  what  many 
speak,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  and  they  are  not  of  one  mind,  touching  the 

imputation  or  communication  of  Adam's  sin  with  his  posterity,  but  that 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  233 

they  differ  as  much  in  meaning,  as  in  words.  If  when  they  say, 
*  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  all  unto  condemnation,'  their  meaning  be  this, 
that  the  guilt  of  iVdam's  sin  is  charged  upon  his  whole  posterity,  or  that 
the  punishment  of  Adam's  sin  redounded  from  his  person  to  his  whole 
posterit}',  a  main  part  of  which  punishment  lieth  in  that  original  defile- 
ment wherein  they  are  all  conceived  and  born,  and  whereby  they  are 
made  truly  sinners  before  God  ;  if  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  term  im- 
putation, when  appUed  to  Adam's  sin,  let  it  pass.  But  if  the  meaning 
be,' that  that  sinful  act,  wherein  Adam  transgressed  when  he  ate  the  for- 
bidden fruit,  is,  in  the  letter  and  formality  of  it,  imputed  to  his  posterity, 
so  that  by  this  imputation  all  his  posterity  are  made  formally  sinners : 
this  is  an  imputation  which  the  Scripture  will  never  justify." 

The  last  text  necessary  to  mention  is  Rom.  iv,  6,  "  Even  as  David 
declareth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  God  itnputeih  righteous- 
ness without  works."  Here  again  the  expositors  of  this  class  assume, 
even  against  the  letter  of  the  text  and  context,  that  the  righteousness 
which  God  is  said  to  impute  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Bat  Calvin 
himself  may  here  be  sufficient  to  answer  them.  "  In  the  fourth  chapter 
of  the  Romans  the  apostle  first  mentions  an  imputation  of  righteousness, 
and  immediately  represents  it  as  consisting  in  remission  of  sins.  David, 
says  he,  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man,  unto  whom  God  imputeth 
righteousness  without  works,  saying,  '  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities 
are  forgiven,'  &;c.  He  there  argues,  not  concerning  a  branch,  but  the 
whole  of  justification  ;  he  also  adduces  the  definition  of  it  given  by  Da- 
vid, when  he  pronounces  those  to  be  blessed  who  receive  the  free  for- 
giveness of  their  sins,  whence  it  appears  that  this  righteousness  is  simply 
opposed  to  guilt."  {Institut.  lib.  iii,  cap.  11.)  The  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness in  this  passage  is,  in  Calvin's  view,  therefore,  the  simple,  non-impu- 
tation of  sin,  or,  in  other  words,  the  remission  of  sins. 

In  none  of  these  passages,  is  there,  then,  any  thing  found  to  counte- 
nance even  that  second  view  of  imputation,  which  consists  in  the  account- 
ing the  righteousness  of  Christ  in  justification  to  be  our  righteousness. 
It  is  only  imputed  in  the  benefit  and  effect  of  it,  that  is,  in  the  blessings 
and  privileges  purchased  by  it ;  and  though  we  may  use  the  phrase,  the 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  in  this  latter  sense,  quaUfying  our  mean- 
ing hke  ParcEus,  who  says,  "  In  this  sense  imputed  righteousness  is  called 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  way  of  merit  or  effect,  because  it  is  pro- 
cured for  us  by  the  merit  of  Christ,  not  because  it  is  subjectively  or  inhe- 
rently in  Christ ;"  yet  since  this  manner  of  speaking  has  no  foundation 
in  Scripture,  and  must  generally  lead  to  misapprehensions,  it  will  be 
found  more  conducive  to  the  cause  of  truth  to  confine  ourselves  to  the 
language  of  the  Scriptures.  According  to  them,  there  is  no  fictitious 
accounting  either  of  what  Christ  did  or  suffered,  or  of  both  united,  to  us, 
as  being  done  and  suffered  bv  us,  through  our  union  with  him,  or  through 

2 


234  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

his  becomiiig  our  legal  representative  ;  but  his  active  and  passive  right- 
eousness, advanced  in  dignity  by  the  union  of  the  Divine  nature  and 
perfection,  is  the  true  meritorious  cause  of  our  justification.  It  is  that 
great  whole  which  constitutes  his  "  merits ;"  that  is  the  consideration, 
in  view  of  wliich  the  offended  but  merciful  Governor  of  the  world,  has 
determined  it  to  be  a  just  and  righteous,  as  well  as  a  merciful  act,  to 
justify  the  ungodly ;  and,  for  the  sake  of  this  perfect  obedience  of  our 
Lord  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  an  obedience  extending  unto  ^'  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross,"  to  every  penitent  sinner  who  believes  in 
him,  but  considered  still  in  his  own  person  as  "  ungodly,"  and  meriting 
nothing  but  punishment,  "  his  faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness  ;"  it  is 
followed  by  the  remission  of  his  sins  and  all  the  benefits  of  the  evan- 
gelical covenant. 

This  imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness  is  the  third  opinion  which 
we  proposed  to  examine. 

That  this  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  express  letter  of  Scripture  no 
one  can  deny,  and,  as  one  well  observes,  "  what  that  is  which  is  imputed 
for  righteousness  in  justification,  all  the  wisdom  and  learning  of  men  is 
not  so  fit  or  able  to  determine,  as  the  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  in  Scrip- 
ture, he  being  the  great  secretary  of  heaven,  and  privy  to  all  the  coun- 
sels of  God."  "  Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him 
for  righteousness,"  Rom.  iv,  3.  "  To  him  that  worketh  not,  but  beUev- 
eth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness,"  verse  5.  "  We  say  that  faith  was  imputed  to  him  for 
righteousness,"  verse  9.  "  Now  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone, 
that  it  was  imputed  to  him,  but  for  us  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we 
believe  in  him  who  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,"  verses 
22-24. 

The  testimony  of  the  apostle,  then,  being  so  express  on  this  point,  the 
imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness  must  be  taken  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
the  New  Testament,  unless,  indeed,  we  admit,  with  the  advocates  of  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that  faith  is  here  used  meto- 
nymically  for  the  object  of  faith,  that  is,  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 
The  context  of  the  above  passages,  however,  is  sufficient  to  refute  this, 
and  makes  it  indubitable  that  the  apostle  uses  the  term  faith  in  its  proper 
and  literal  sense.  Li  verse  5,  he  calls  the  faith  of  him  that  believeth, 
and  which  is  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness,  "  his  faith  ;"  but  in  what 
sense  could  this  be  taken  if  St.  Paul  meant  by  "  his  faith,"  the  object 
of  his  faith,  namely,  the  righteousness  of  Christ  ?  And  how  could  that  be 
his  before  the  imputation  was  made  to  him  ?  Again,  in  verse  5,  the  faith 
spoken  of  is  opposed  to  works  :  "To  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth 
on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness." Finally,  in  verse  22,  the  faith  imputed  to  us  is  described  to 
be  our  "  beheving  in  Him  who  raised  up  our  Lord  Jesus  from  the  dead :" 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  235 

SO  that  the  apostle  has,  by  these  explanations,  rendered  it  impossible  for 
us  to  understand  him  as  meaning  any  thing  else  by  faith,  but  the  act  of 
beUeving.  To  those  who  will,  notwithstanding  this  evidence  from  the 
context,  still  insist  upon  understanding  faith,  in  these  passages,  to  mean 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  Baxter  bluntly  observes,  "  If  it  be  not  faith 
indeed  that  the  apostle  meaneth,  the  context  is  so  far  from  relieving  our 
understandings,  that  it  contributeth  to  our  unavoidable  deceit  or  igno- 
rance. Read  over  the  texts,  and  put  but  '  Christ's  righteousness'  every 
where  instead  of  the  word  '  faith,'  and  see  what  a  scandalous  paraphrase 
you  will  make.  The  Scripture  is  not  so  audaciously  to  be  corrected." 
Some  farther  observations  will,  however,  be  necessary  for  the  clear  ap- 
prehension of  this  doctrine. 

We  have  already  seen,  in  establishing  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  that  the  law  of  God  inflicts  the  penalty  of  death  upon  every 
act  of  disobedience,  and  that  all  men  have  come  under  that  penalty. 
That  men,  having  become  totally  corrupt,  are  not  capable  of  obedience 
in  future.  That  if  they  were,  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  that  fu- 
ture obedience  to  be  a  consideration  for  the  forgiveness  of  past  offences, 
under  a  righteous  government.  It  follows,  therefore,  that,  by  moral 
obedience,  or  attempted  and  professed  moral  obedience,  there  can  be  no 
remission  of  sins,  that  is,  no  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  offences 
actually  committed.  This  is  the  ground  of  the  great  argument  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  He  proves  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  under  sin  ;  that  the  whole  world  is  guilty  before  God  ;  and  by 
consequence  under  his  wrath,  under  condemnation,  from  which  they 
could  only  be  relieved  by  the  Gospel. 

In  his  argument  with  the  Jews  the  subject  is  farther  opened.  They 
sought  justification  by  "  works  of  law."  If  we  take  "  works"  to  mean 
obedience  both  to  the  moral  and  ceremonial  law  it  makes  no  difference ; 
for,  as  they  had  given  up  the  typical  character  of  their  sacrifices,  and 
their  symbolical  reference  to  the  death  of  Messiah,  the  performance  of 
their  rehgious  rites  was  no  longer  an  expression  of  faith  ;  it  was  brought 
down  to  the  same  principle  as  obedience  to  the  moral  law,  a  simple  com- 
pliance with  the  commands  of  God.  Their  case,  then,  was  this,  they 
were  sinners  on  conviction  of  their  law,  and  by  obedience  to  it  they 
sought  justification,  ignorant  both  of  its  spiritual  meaning  and  large  ex- 
tent, and  unmindful,  too,  of  this  obvious  principle,  that  no  acts  of  obedi- 
ence, even  if  perfect,  could  take  away  past  transgression.  The  apostle's 
great  axiom  on  this  subject  is,  that  "  by  works  of  law,  no  man  can  he 
justified"  and  the  doctrine  of  justification,  which  he  teaches,  is  the  oppo- 
site  of  theirs.  It  is,  that  men  are  sinners  ;  that  they  must  confess  them- 
selves such,  and  join  to  this  confession  a  true  repentance.  That  justi- 
fication is  a  gratuitous  act  of  God's  mercy,  a  procedure  of  pure  "  grace," 
pot  of  "  debt."     That  in  order  to  the  exercise  of  this  grace,  on  the  part 

2 


236  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  God,  Christ  was  set  forth  as  a  propitiation  for  sin ;  that  his  death, 
under  this  character,  is  a  "  demonstration  of  the  righteousness  of  God" 
in  the  free  and  gratuitous  remission  of  sins;  and  that  this  actual  remis- 
sion or  justification,  follows  upon  believing  in  Christ,  because  faith, 
under  this  gracious  constitution  and  method  of  justification,  is  accounted 
to  men  for  righteousness ;  in  other  words,  that  righteousness  is  imputed 
to  them  upon  their  believing,  which  imputation  of  righteousness  is,  as  he 
teaches  us,  in  the  passages  before  quoted,  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  for 
to  have  faith  counted  or  imputed  for  righteousness  is  explained  by  Da- 
vid,  in  the  psalm  which  the  apostle  quotes,  (Rom.  iv,)  to  have  sin  for- 
given, covered,  and  not  imputed.  That  this  was  no  new  doctrine,  he 
shows  also  from  the  justification  of  Abraham.  "  Abraham  believed  God, 
and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness,"  Rom.  iv,  3.  "  Know  ye, 
therefore,  that  they  which  are  of  the  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of 
Abraham.  And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the 
heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,  say- 
ing. In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.  So  these  which  are  of  faith 
are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,"  Gal.  iii,  7-9. 

On  the  one  hand,  therefore,  it  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  Scripture  that 
man  is  not,  and  never  was  in  any  age,  justified  by  works  of  any  kind, 
whether  moral  or  ceremonial ;  on  the  other,  that  he  is  justified  by  the 
imputation  and  accounting  of  "  faith  for  righteousness."  On  this  point, 
until  the  Antinomian  corruption  began  to  infest  the  reformed  Churches, 
the  leading  commentators,  from  the  earliest  ages,  were  very  uniform  and 
explicit.  That  when  faith  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness, 
the  word  is  taken  literally,  "  and  not  tropically,  was,"  says  Goodwin, 
"  the  common  interpretation  anciently  received  and  followed  by  the  prin- 
cipal lights  of  the  Church  of  God  ;  and  for  fifteen  hundred  years  toge- 
ther (as  far  as  my  memory  will  assist  me)  was  never  questioned  or  con- 
tradicted. Neither  did  the  contrary  opinion  ever  look  out  into  the  world, 
till  the  last  age.  So  that  it  is  but  a  calumny  brought  upon  it,  (unworthy 
the  tongue  or  pen  of  any  sober  man,)  to  make  either  Arminius  or  Soci- 
nus  the  author  of  it.  And  for  this  last  hundred  years  and  upward, 
from  Luther's  and  Calvin's  times,  the  stream  of  interpreters  agrees 
therewith. 

"  Tertullian,  who  wrote  about  the  year  194,  in  his  fifth  book  against 
Marcion,  says,  '  But  how  the  children  of  faith  ?  or  of  whose  faith,  if  not 
of  Abraham's  ?  For  if  Abraham  beheved  God,  and  that  was  imputed 
unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  he  thereby  deserved  the  name  of  a  father 
of  many  nations,  we,  also,  by  believing  God,  are  justified  as  Abraham 
was.'  Therefore  TertuUian's  opinion  directly  is,  that  the  faith  which  is 
said  to  be  imputed  to  Abraham  for  righteousness,  is  faith  properly  taken, 
and  not  the  righteousness  of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith. 

"  Origen,  who  lived  about  the  year  203,  in  his  fourth  book  upon  the 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  237 

Romans,  chap,  iv,  verse  3,  says,  *  It  seems,  therefore,  that  in  this  place 
also,  whereas  many  faiths  (that  is,  many  acts  of  believing)  of  Abraham 
had  gone  before,  now  all  his  faith  was  collected  and  united  together,  and 
so  was  accounted  unto  him  for  righteousness.' 

"  Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  before  them  both,  and  not  long  after  the 
Apostle  John's  time,  about  the  year  130,  in  his  disputation  with  Trypho 
the  Jew,  led  them  both  to  that  interpretation.  '  Abraham  carried  not 
away  the  testimony  of  righteousness,  because  of  his  circumcision,  but 
because  of  his  faith.  For  before  he  was  circumcised,  this  was  pro- 
nounced of  him,  Abraham  beheved  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him 
for  righteousness.' 

.  "  Chrysostom,  upon  Gal.  iii,  says,  '  For  what  was  Abraham  the  worse 
for  not  being  under  the  law  ?  Nothing  at  all.  For  his  faith  was  suffi- 
cient unto  him  for  righteousness.'  If  iibraham's  faith  was  sufficient 
unto  him  for  righteousness,  it  must  needs  be  imputed  by  God  for  right- 
eousness unto  him ;  for  it  is  this  imputation  from  God  that  must  make 
that  sufficiency  of  it  unto  Abraham.  That  which  will  not  pass  in  ac- 
count with  God  for  righteousness,  will  never  be  sufficient  for  righteousness 
unto  the  creature. 

"  St.  Augustine,  who  lived  about  the  year  390,  gives  frequent  testi- 
mony to  this  interpretation.  Upon  Psa.  cxlviii,  '  For  we  by  believing  have 
found  that  which  they  (the  Jews)  lost  by  not  believing.  For  Abraham 
beUeved  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness.'  Tliere- 
fore  his  opinion  clearly  is,  that  it  was  Abraham's  faith,  or  believing  pro- 
perly taken,  that  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,  and  not  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  For  that  faith  of  his,  which  was  so  imputed, 
he  opposeth  to  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  whereby  they  lost  the  grace  and 
favour  of  God.  Now  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  opposed  to 
unbelief,  but  faith  properly  taken.     Again,  writing  upon  Psalm  Lxx, 

*  For  I  believe  in  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  that  my  faith  may  be 
imputed  unto  me  for  righteousness.'  The  same  father  yet  again,  in  his 
tract  of  Nature  and  Grace  :  '  But  if  Christ  died  not  in  vain,  the  ungodly 
is  justified  in  him  alone  :  to  whom,  believing  in  him  that  justifieth  the 
ungodly,  his  faith  is  accounted  for  righteousness.' 

"Primasius,  about  the  year  500,  writes  upon  Romans  iv,  verse  3, 

*  Abraham's  faith  by  the  gift  of  God  was  so  great,  that  both  his  former 
sins  were  forgiven  him,  and  this  faith  of  his  alone  preferred  in  accepta- 
tion before  all  righteousness.' 

"  Bede,  who  lived  somewhat  before  the  year  700,  upon  Romans  iv, 
verse  5,  observes,  '  What  faith,  but  that  which  the  apostle  in  another 
place  fully  defineth  ?  neither  circumcision,  nor  uncircumcision,  availeth 
any  thing,  but  faith  which  worketh  by  love  ;  not  any  fiiith,  but  that  faith 
which  worketh  by  love.'  Certainly  that  faith,  which  Paul  defineth  to  be 
a  faith  working  by  love,  cannot  be  conceived  to  be  the  righteousness  of 

2 


238  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Christ ;  and  yet  this  faith  it  was,  in  the  judgment  of  this  author,  that  was 
imputed  unto  Abraham  for  righteousness. 

"  Haymo,  about  the  year  840,  on  Rom.  iv,  3,  writes,  « Because  he 
beUeved  God,  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,  that  is,  unto 
remission  of  sins,  because  by  that  faith,  wherewith  he  beUeved,  he  was 
made  righteous.' 

"Anselm,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  about  the  year  1090,  upon 
Rom.  iv,  3,  '  That  he  (meaning  Abraham)  beheved  so  strongly,  was  by 
God  imputed  for  righteousness  unto  him ;  that  is,  &;c,  by  his  beheving 
he  was  imputed  righteous  before  God.' 

*'  From  all  these  testimonies  it  is  apparent,  that  the  interpretation  of 
this  scripture  which  we  contend  for,  anciently  obtained  in  the  Church 
of  God,  and  no  man  was  found  to  open  his  mouth  against  it,  till  it  had 
been  established  for  above  a  thousand  years.  Come  we  to  the  times  of 
reformation  ;  here  we  shall  fmd  it  still  maintained  by  men  of  the  greatest 
authority  and  learning. 

"  Luther  on  Gal.  iii,  6,  *  Christian  righteousness  is  an  affiance  or 
faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  which  affiance  is  imputed  unto  righteousness 
for  Christ's  sake.'  And  in  the  same  place,  not  long  after,  '  God  for 
Christ's  sake,  in  whom  I  have  begun  to  believe,  accounts  this  (my) 
hnperfect  faith,  for  perfect  righteousness.' 

"  Bucer,  upon  Rom.  iv,  3,  '  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed 
unto  him  for  righteousness,  that  is,  he  accounted  this  faith  for  righteous- 
ness unto  him.  So  that  by  believing  he  obtained  this,  that  God  esteemed 
him  a  righteous  man.' 

"  Peter  Martyr  declares  himself  of  the  same  judgment,  upon  Rom. 
IV,  3,  '  To  be  imputed  for  righteousness  in  anotlier  sense,  that  by  which 
we  ourselves  are  reckoned  in  the  number  of  the  righteous.  And  this 
Paul  attributes  to  faith  only.' 

"Calvin  has  the  same  interpretation  upon  Rom.  iv,  3,  'Wherefore 
Abraham,  by  beheving,  doth  only  embrace  the  grace  tendered  unto  him, 
that  it  might  not  be  in  vain.  If  this  be  imputed  unto  him  for  righteous- 
ness, it  follows,  that  he  is  no  otherwise  righteous,  but  as  trusting  or 
relying  upon  the  goodness  of  God,  he  hath  boldness  to  hope  for  all 
things  from  him.'  Again,  upon  verse  5,  'Faith  is  imputed  for  right- 
eousness, not  because  it  carrieth  any  merit  from  us,  but  because  it 
apprehends  the  goodness  of  God.'  Hence  it  appears,  that  he  never 
thought  of  a  tropical  or  metonymical  sense  in  the  word  faith ;  but  that 
he  took  it  in  the  plain,  ready,  and  grammatical  signification. 

"  Musciilus  contends  for  this  imputation,  also,  in  his  common  place  of 
justification,  sect.  5,  '  This  faith  should  be  in  high  esteem  with  us ;  not 
in  regard  of  the  proper  quality  of  it,  but  in  regard  of  the  purpose  of  God, 
whereby  he  hath  decreed,  for  Christ's  sake,  to  impute  it  for  righteous^, 
ness  unto  those  that  believe  in  him.'    The  same  author  upon  Gal.  iii,  6, 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  239 

*  What  did  Abraham  that  should  be  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness, 
but  only  this,  that  he  believed  God  ?'  Again,  '  But  when  he  firmly  be- 
lieved God  promising,  that  very  faith  was  imputed  to  him,  in  the  place 
of  righteousness,  that  is,  he  was  of  God  reputed  righteous  for  that  faith, 
and  absolved  from  all  his  sins.' 

"  Bullinger  gives  the  same  interpretation,  upon  Romans  iv,  *  Abraham 
committed  himself  unto  God  by  believing,  and  this  very  thing  was 
imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness."  And  so,  upon  Gal.  iii,  6,  *  It  was 
imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,  that  is,  that  very  faith  of  Abraham 
was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness,  while  he  was  yet  uncircumcised.' 

"  Gaulter  comes  behind  none  of  the  former,  in  avouching  the  gram- 
matical against  the  rhetorical  interpretation,  upon  Romans  iv,  3,  '  Abra- 
ham  believed  God,  and  he,  viz.  God,  imputed  unto  him  this  faith  for 
righteousness.' 

"lUyricus  forsakes  not  his  fellow  interpreters  in  this  point,  upon 
Romans  iv,  3,  '  That  same  believing  was  imputed  unto  him  for 
righteousness.' 

"  Pellicanus,  in  Uke  manner,  says,  upon  Gen.  xx,  6,  '  Abraham 
simply  believed  the  word  of  God,  and  required  not  a  sign  of  the 
Lord,  and  God  imputed  that  ver^'  faith  unto  Abraham  himself  for 
righteousness.' 

"  Hunnius,  another  divine,  sets  to  his  seal,  on  Romans  iv,  3,  'The 
faith  whereby  Abraham  believed  God  promising,  was  imputed  unto  him 
for  righteousness.' 

"  Beza,  upon  the  same  scripture,  says,  '  Here  the  business  is,  con- 
cerning that  which  was  imputed  unto  him,  viz.  his  faith.' 

"Junius  and  Tremellius  are  likewise  of  the  same  mind,  on  Gen. 
XV,  6,  '  God  esteemed  (or  accounted)  him  for  righteous  though  wanting 
righteousness,  and  reckoned  this  in  the  place  of  righteousness,  that  he 
embraced  the  promise  with  a  firm  belief.' "  {Vide  Goodwin  on  Justijicaiion.) 

Our  English  divines  have  generally  differed  in  their  interpretations, 
as  they  have  embraced  or  opposed  the  Calvinistic  system ;  but  among 
the  more  moderate  of  that  school  there  have  not  been  wanting  many 
who  have  bound  their  system  to  the  express  letter  and  obvious  meaning 
of  Scripture,  on  this  point ;  not  to  mention  either  those  who  have  adopted 
that  middle  scheme  generally,  but  not  with  exactness  attributed  to  Bax- 
ter, or  the  followers  of  the  remonstrants. 

When,  however,  we  say,  that  faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness,  in 
order  to  prevent  misapprehension,  and  fully  to  answer  the  objections 
raised  on  the  other  side,  the  meaning  of  the  different  terms  of  this  pro- 
position ought  to  be  explained.     They  are  righteous^'ess,  faith,  and 

IMPUTATION. 

To  explain  the  first,  reference  has  sometimes  been  made  to  tlie  three 
terms  used  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  oixaiwjxa,  dixaiutfig,  and  ojxoiotfovii ;  of 

2 


240  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

which,  says  Baxter,  "  the  first  usually  signifies  the  practical  or  precep- 
tive  matter,  that  is,  righteousness ;  the  second,  active,  efficient  justifica- 
Hon ;  the  third,  the  state  of  the  just,  qualitative  or  relative,  or  ipsam 
justitiam"  Others  have  made  these  distinctions  a  Uttle  different ;  but 
not  much  help  is  to  be  derived  from  them,  and  it  is  much  more  import- 
ant to  observe,  that  the  apostle  often  uses  the  term  8ixaio(fvvr],  righteous- 
ness, in  a  passive  sense  for  justification  itself.  So  in  Gal.  ii,  21,  "If 
righteousness  {justification)  come  by  the  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in 
vain."  Gal.  iii,  21,  "For  if  there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could 
have  given  life,  verily  righteousness  {justification)  should  have  been  by 
the  law."  Rom.  ix,  30,  "  The  Gentiles  have  attained  to  righteousness, 
{justification,)  even  the  righteousness  {justification)  which  is  by  faith." 
And  in  Rom.  x,  4,  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth';"  where,  also,  we  must  understand  righteous- 
ness to  mean  justification.  Rom.  v,  18,  19,  will  also  show,  that  with 
the  apostle,  "  to  make  righteous,"  and  "  to  justify,"  signify  the  same 
thing  ;  for  "justification  of  life,"  in  the  18th  verse,  is  called  in  the  19th, 
being  "  made  righteous."  To  be  accounted  righteous  is,  then,  in  the 
apostle's  style,  where  there  has  been  personal  guilt,  to  be  justified  ;  and 
what  is  accounted  or  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness,  is  accounted  or 
imputed  to  us  for  our  justification. 

The  second  term  of  the  above  proposition  which  it  is  necessaiy  to 
explain,  is  faith.  The  true  nature  of  justifying  faith  will  be  explained 
below  ;  all  that  is  here  necessary  to  remark  is,  that  it  is  not  every  act 
of  faith,  or  faith  in  the  general  truths  of  revelation,  which  is  imputed  for 
righteousness,  though  it  supposes  them  all,  and  is  the  completion  of 
them  all.  By  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were  framed  by  the 
word  of  God ;  but  it  is  not  our  faith  in  creation,  which  is  imputed  to  us 
for  righteousness.  So  in  the  case  of  Abraham  ;  he  not  only  had  faith 
in  the  truths  of  the  religion,  of  which  he  was  the  teacher  and  guardian, 
but  had  exercised  affiance,  also,  in  some  particular  promises  of  God, 
before  he  exhibited  that  great  act  of  faith,  which  was  "  counted  to  him 
for  righteousness,"  and  which  made  his  justification  the  pattern  of  the 
justification  of  sinful  men  in  all  ages.  But  having  received  the  promise 
of  a  son,  from  v/hom  the  Messiah  should  spring,  in  whom  all  nations 
were  to  be  blessed ;  and,  "  being  not  weak  in  faith,  he  considered  not 
his  own  body  now  dead,  when  he  was  about  a  hundred  years  old,  nor 
yet  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb ;  he  staggered  not  at  the  promise 
of  God  through  unbelief;  but  was  strong  in  faith,  giving  glory  to  God, 
and  being  fully  persuaded  that  what  he  had  promised  he  was  able  also 
to  perform,  and  therefore  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness,^^ 
Rom.  iv,  19-23.  His  faith  had  Messiah  for  its  great  and  ultimate 
object,  and  in  its  nature  it  was  an  entire  affiance  in  the  promise  and 
faithfulness  of  God,  with  reference  to  the  holy  seed.     So  the  object  of 


SECOAD.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  241 

that  faith  which  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness  is  Christ ;  Christ  as 
having  made  atonement  for  our  sins,  (the  remission  of  our  sins,  as  ex- 
pressly taught  by  St.  Paul,  being  obtained  by  "  faith  in  his  blood  ,•")  and 
it  is  in  its  nature  an  entire  affiance  in  the  promise  of  God  to  this  effect, 
made  to  us  through  his  atonement,  and  founded  upon  it.  Faith  being 
thus  understood,  excludes  all  notion  of  its  meritoriousness.  It  is  not 
faith,  generally  considered,  which  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness ; 
but  faith  (trust)  in  an  atonement  offered  by  another  in  our  behalf;  by 
which  trust  in  something  without  us,  we  acknowledge  our  own  insuffi- 
ciency, guilt,  and  unworthiness,  and  directly  ascribe  the  merit  to  that  in 
which  we  trust,  and  which  is  not  our  own,  namely,  the  propitiation  of 
the  blood  of  Christ. 

The  third  term  is  oiputation.  The  original  verb  is  well  enough 
translated  to  impute,  in  the  sense  of  to  redkon,  to  account ;  but,  as  we 
liave  stated  above,  it  is  never  used  to  signify  imputation  in  the  sense 
of  accounting  the  actions  of  one  person  to  have  been  performed  by 
another. 

A  man's  sin  or  righteousness  is  imputed  to  him,  when  he  is  consi- 
dered as  actually  the  doer  of  sinful  or  of  righteous  acts,  in  which  sense 
the  word  repute  is  in  more  general  use  ;  and  he  is,  in  consequence, 
reputed  a  vicious  or  a  holy  man.  A  man's  sin  or  righteousness  is  im- 
puted  to  him  in  its  legal  consequence^  under  a  government  by  rewards 
and  punishments ;  and  then  to  impute  sin  or  righteousness,  signifies,  in 
a  legal  sense,  to  reckon  and  to  account  it,  to  acquit  or  condemn,  and 
forthwith  to  punish,  or  to  exempt  from  punishment.  Thus  Shimei 
entreats  David,  that  he  v/ould  "  not  impute  folly  to  him,"  that  is,  that 
he  would  not  punish  his  folly.  In  this  sense,  too,  David  speaks  of  the 
blessedness  of  the  man,  to  whom  the  Lord  ''imputeth  not  sin,"  that  is, 
whom  he  forgives,  so  that  the  legal  consequence  of  his  sin  shall  not  fall 
upon  him.  This  non-imputation  of  sin,  to  a  sinner,  is  expressly  called 
the  "  imputation  of  righteousness,  without  works ,-"  the  imputation  of 
righteousness  is,  then,  the  non-punishment,  or  pardon  of  sin  ;  and  if 
this  passage  be  read  in  its  connection,  it  will  also  be  seen,  that  by  "im- 
puting" faith  for  righteousness,  the  apostle  means  precisely  the  same 
thing.  "  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justi- 
fieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness  ;^''  even  as  Da- 
vid, also,  describeth  the  man  to  whom  God  imputetli  righteousness  with- 
out works,  saying,  blessed  is  the  man  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and 
whose  sins  are  covered,  blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  "  impu- 
teth  not  sin."  This  quotation  from  David  would  have  been  nothing  to 
the  apostle's  purpose,  unless  he  had  understood  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and  the  imputation  of  righteousness,  and  the  non-imputation  of  sin,  to 
signify  the  same  thing  as  "  counting  faith  for  righteousness,"  with  only 
this  difference,  that  the  introduction  of  the  term  "  faith,"  marks  the 

Vol.  II.  16 


242  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

manner  in  v/hich  the  forgiveness  of  sin  is  obtained.  To  impute  faith 
for  righteousness,  is  nothing  more  than  to  be  justified  by  faith,  which  is 
also  called  by  St.  Paul,  "  being  made  righteous,"  that  is,  being  placed 
by  an  act  of  free  forgiveness,  through  faith  in  Christ,  in  the  condition 
of  righteous  men,  in  this  respect,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  does  not 
lie  against  them,  and  that  they  are  restored  to  the  Divine  favour. 

From  this  brief,  but,  it  is  hoped,  clear  explanation  of  these  terms, 
righteousness,  faith,  and  imputation,  it  will  appear,  that  it  is  not  quite 
correct  in  the  advocates  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of 
faith  for  righteousness,  to  say,  that  our  faith  in  Christ  is  accepted  in  the 
place  of  personal  obedience  to  the  law,  except,  indeed,  in  this  loose 
sense,  that  our  faith  in  Christ  as  effectually  exempts  us  from  punish- 
ment, as  if  we  had  been  personally  obedient.  The  Scriptural  doctrine 
is  rather,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  accepted  in  the  place  of  our  per- 
sonal punishment,  on  condition  of  our  faith  in  him  ;  and,  that  when  faith 
in  him  is  actually  exerted,  then  comes  in,  on  the  part  of  God,  the  act 
of  imputing,  or  reckoning  righteousness  to  us  ;  or,  what  is  the  same 
thing,  accounting  faith  for  righteousness,  that  is,  pardoning  our  offences 
through  faith,  and  treating  us  as  the  objects  of  his  restored  favour. 

To  this  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness,  the  prin- 
cipal objections  which  have  been  made,  admit  of  an  easy  answer. 

The  first  is  that  of  the  papists,  who  take  the  term  justification  to  sig- 
nify the  making  men  morally  just  or  righteous ;  and  they,  therefore, 
argue,  that  as  faith  alone  is  not  righteousness  in  the  moral  sense,  it 
would  be  false,  and,  therefore,  impossible,  to  impute  it  for  righteousness. 
But,  as  we  have  proved  from  Scripture,  that  justification  simply  signifies 
the  pardon  of  sin,  this  objection  has  no  foundation. 

A  second  objection  is,  that  if  faith,  that  is,  believing,  is  imputed  for 
righteousness,  then  justification  is  by  works,  or  by  somewhat  in  our- 
selves. In  this  objection,  the  term  works  is  equivocal.  If  it  mean 
works  of  obedience  to  the  moral  law,  the  objection  is  unfounded,  for 
foith  is  not  a  work  of  this  kind ;  and  if  it  mean  the  merit  of  works  of 
any  kind,  it  is  equally  without  foundation,  for  no  merit  is  allowed  to 
faith,  and  faith,  in  the  sense  of  exclusive  affiance,  or  trusting  in  the 
merits  of  another,  shuts  out,  by  its  very  nature,  all  assumption  of  merit 
to  ourselves,  or  there  would  be  no  need  of  resorting  to  another's  merit ; 
but  if  it  mean,  that  faith  or  believing  is  the  doing  of  something,  in  order 
to  our  justification,  it  is,  in  this  view,  the  performance  of  a  condition,  a 
sine  qua  non,  which  is  not  only  not  forbidden  by  Scripture,  but  required 
of  us, — "  this  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath 
sent;"  "he  that  beheveth  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  beheveth  not 
shall  be  damned."  And  so  far  is  this  considered  by  the  Apostle  Paul, 
as  prejudicing  the  free  grace  of  God  in  our  justification,  that  he  makes 
our  justification  by  faith,  the  proof  of  its  gratuitous  nature,  "  for  by  grace 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.'  243 

are  ye  saved,  tlirough  faith"     "  Therefore,  it  is  by  faith,  that  it  might 
be  through  grace." 

A  third  objection  is,  that  the  imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness  gives 
occasion  to  boasting,  which  is  condemned  by  the  Gospel.  The  answer 
to  this  is,  1.  That  the  objection  Ues  with  equal  strength  against  the 
theory  of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  since  faith  is 
required  in  order  to  that  imputation.  2.  Boasting  of  our  faith  is  cut  off 
by  the  consideration,  that  this  faith  itself  is  the  gift  of  God.  3.  If  it 
were  not,  yet  the  blessings  which  follow  upon  our  faith,  are  not  given 
with  reference  to  any  worth  or  merit  which  there  may  be  in  our  believ- 
ing,  but  are  given  with  respect  to  the  death  of  Christ,  from  the  bounty 
and  grace  of  (jod.  4.  St.  Paul  was  clearly  of  the  contrary  opinion, 
who  tells  us  that  "  boasting  is  excluded  by  the  law  of  faith ;"  the  reason 
of  which  has  been  already  stated,  that  trust  in  another  for  salvation, 
does,  ipso  facto,  attribute  the  power,  and  consequently  the  honour  of 
saving,  to  another,  and  denies  both  to  ourselves. 

Since,  then,  we  are  "justified  by  faith,"  our  next  inquiry  must  be, 
somewhat  more  particularly,  into  the  specific  quality  of  that  faith,  which 
thus,  by  the  appointment  of  God,  leads  to  this  important  change  in  our 
relations  to  the  Being,  whom  we  have  offended,  so  that  our  offences  are 
freely  forgiven,  and  we  are  restored  to  his  favour. 

On  the  subject  of  justifying  faith,  so  many  distinctions  have  been  set 
up,  so  many  logical  terms  and  definitions  are  found  in  the  writings  of 
systematic  divines,  and  often,  as  Baxter  has  it,  "  such  quibbling  and 
jingling  of  a  mere  sound  of  words,"  that  the  simple  Christian,  to  whom 
this  subject  ought  always  to  be  made  plain,  has  often  been  grievously 
perplexed,  and  no  small  cause  has  been  given  for  the  derision  of  infr* 
dels.  On  this,  as  on  other  points,  we  appeal  "  to  the  law  and  testi- 
mony," to  Christ  and  his  apostles,  who  are,  at  once,  the  only  true  autho- 
rities, and  teachers  of  the  greatest  simplicity. 
We  remark,  then, 

1.  That  in  Scripture  faith  is  presented  to  us  under  two  leading  views. 
The  first  is  that  of  assent  or  persuasion ;  the  second,  that  of  confidence 
or  reliance.  That  the  former  may  be  separated  from  the  latter,  is  also 
plain,  though  the  latter  cannot  exist  without  the  former.  Faith,  in  the 
sense  of  intellectual  assent  to  truth,  is  allowed  to  be  possessed  by  devils. 
A  dead  inoperative  faith,  is  also  supposed,  or  declared,  to  be  possessed 
by  wicked  men,  professing  Christianity ;  for  our  Lord  represents  per- 
sons  coming  to  him  at  the  last  day,  saying,  "  Lord,  have  we  not  prophe- 
sied in  thy  name,"  &;c,  to  whom  he  will  say,  "  Depart  from  me,  I  never 
knew  you,"  and  yet  the  charge,  in  this  case,  does  not  lie  against  the 
sincerity  of  their  belief,  but  against  their  conduct  as  "  workers  of  ini- 
quity." As  this  distinction  is  taught  in  Scripture,  so  it  is  also  observed 
in  experience,  that  assent  to  the  truths  of  revealed  religion  may  result 

2 


244  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

from  examination  and  conviction,  while  yet  the  spirit  and  conduct  may 
be  unrenewed  and  wholly  worldly. 

On  the  other  hand,  that  the  faith  which  God  requires  of  men  always 
comprehends  confidence  or  reliance,  as  well  as  assent  or  persuasion,  is 
equally  clear.  The  faith  by  which  "  the  elders  obtained  a  good  report," 
was  of  this  character  ;  it  united  assent  to  the  truth  of  God's  revelations, 
to  a  noble  confidence  in  his  promises.  "  Our  fathers  trusted  in  Thee, 
and  were  not  confounded."  We  have  a  farther  illustration  in  our  Lord's 
address  to  his  disciples  upon  the  withering  away  of  the  fig  tree,  "  Have 
faith  in  God."  He  did  not  question  whether  they  believed  the  existence 
of  God,  but  exhorted  them  to  confidence  in  his  promises,  when  called 
by  him  to  contend  with  mountainous  difficulties.  "  Have  faith  in  God, 
for  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  whosoever  shall  say  unto  this  mountain. 
Be  thou  removed,  and  be  thou  cast  into  the  sea,  and  shall  not  doubt  in 
his  heart,  but  shall  believe  that  these  things  which  he  saith  shall  come 
to  pass,  he  shall  have  whatsoever  he  saith."  It  was  in  reference  to  his 
simple  confidence  in  Christ's  power,  that  our  Lord  so  highly  commended 
the  centurion,  Matt,  viii,  10,  and  said,  "  I  have  not  found  so  gre^i  faith, 
no,  not  in  Israel."  And  all  the  instances  of  faith  in  the  persons  miracu- 
lously healed  by  Christ,  were  also  of  this  kind  :  it  was  belief  in  his 
claims,  and  confidence  in  his  goodness  and  power. 

The  faith  in  Christ,  which  in  the  New  Testament  is  connected  with 
salvation,  is  clearly  of  this  nature  ;  that  is,  it  combines  assent  with  reli- 
ance, belief  with  trust.  *'  Whatsoever  ye  ask  the  Father  in  my  namej'^ 
that  is,  in  dependence  upon  my  interest  and  merits,  "  he  shall  give  it 
you."  Christ  was  preached  both  to  Jews  and  Gentiles  as  the  object  of 
their  trust,  because  he  was  preached  as  the  only  true  sacrifice  for  sin ; 
and  they  were  required  to  renounce  their  dependence  upon  their  own 
accustomed  sacrifices,  and  to  transfer  that  dependence  to  his  death  and 
mediation, — and  "  in  his  name  shall  the  Gentiles  trust."  He  is  set  forth 
as  a  propitiation,  "  through  faith  in  his  blood  ;"  which  faith  can  neither 
merely  mean  assent  to  the  historical  fact  that  his  blood  was  shed  by  a 
violent  death,  nor  mere  assent  to  the  general  doctrine  that  his  blood  had 
an  atoning  quality ;  but  as  all  expiatory  offerings  were  trusted  in  as  the 
means  of  propitiation  both  among  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that  faith  or  trust 
was  now  to  be  exclusively  rendered  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  heightened 
by  the  stronger  demonstrations  of  a  Divine  appointment. 

To  the  most  unlettered  Christian  this  then  will  be  most  obvious,  that 
that  faith  in  Christ  which  is  required  of  us,  consists  both  of  assent  and 
trust ;  and  the  necessity  of  maintaining  these  inseparably  united  will 
farther  appear  by  considering,  that  it  is  not  a  blind  and  superstitious 
trust  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  like  that  of  the  heathens  in  their  sacri- 
fices, which  leads  to  salvation  ;  nor  the  presumptuous  trust  of  wicked 
and  impenitent  men,  who  depend  on  Christ  to  save  them  in  their  sins  j 


I 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  245 

but  such  a  trust  as  is  exercised  according  to  the  authority  and  direction 
of  the  word  of  God  ;  so  that  to  know  the  Gospel  in  its  leading  princi- 
ples, and  to  have  a  cordial  belief  in  it,  is  necessary  to  that  more  specific 
act  of  faith  which  is  called  reliance,  or  in  systematic  \a.ngua.ge,  Jiducial 
assent,  of  which  cometh  salvation.  The  Gospel,  as  the  scheme  of  man's 
salvation,  supposes  that  he  is  under  law ;  that  this  law  of  God  has 
been  violated  by  all ;  and  that  every  man  is  under  sentence  of  death. — 
Serious  consideration  of  our  ways,  confession  of  the  fact,  and  sorrowful 
conviction  of  the  evil  and  danger  of  sin,  will  follow  the  gift  of  repent- 
ance, and  a  cordial  belief  of  the  testimony  of  God,  and  we  shall  thus 
turn  to  God  with  contrite  hearts,  and  earnest  prayers  and  supplications 
for  his  mercy.  This  is  called  "  repentance  toward  God ;"  and  repent- 
ance being  the  first  subject  of  evangelical  preaching,  and  then  the 
belief  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  plain  that  Christ  is  only  immediately  held 
out  in  this  Divine  plan  of  our  redemption  as  the  object  of  trust  in  order 
to  forgiveness  to  persons  in  this  state  of  penitence,  and  under  this  sense 
of  danger.  The  degree  of  sorrow  for  sin,  and  alarm  upon  this  disco- 
very of  our  danger  as  sinners,  is  nowhere  fixed  in  Scripture  ;  only  it  is 
supposed  every  where,  that  it  is  such  as  to  lead  men  to  inquire  ear- 
nestly "  what  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  and  to  use  all  the  appointed 
means  of  salvation,  as  those  who  feel  that  their  salvation  is  at  issue  ;  that 
they  are  in  a  lost  condition,  and  must  be  pardoned  or  perish.  To  all 
such  persons,  Christ,  as  the  only  atonement  for  sin,  is  exhibited  as 
the  object  of  their  trust,  with  the  promise  of  God,  "that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  Nothing  is 
required  of  such  but  this  actual  trust  in,  and  personal  apprehension  or 
taking  hold  of  the  merits  of  Christ's  death  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  ;  and 
upon  their  thus  believing  they  are  justified,  their  faith  is  "  counted  for 
righteousness." 

This  appears  to  be  the  plain  Scriptural  representation  of  this  doc- 
trine, and  we  may  infer  from  it,  1.  That  the  faith  by  which  we  are 
justified  is  not  a  mere  assent  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  which 
leaves  the  heart  unmoved  and  unaffected  by  a  sense  of  the  evil  and 
danger  of  sin,  and  the  desire  of  salvation,  though  it  supposes  this  assent : 
nor,  2.  Is  it  that  more  lively  and  cordial  assent  to,  and  behef  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  touching  our  sinful  and  lost  condition,  which  is 
wrought  in  the  heart  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  from  which  springeth 
repentance,  though  this  must  precede  it ;  nor,  8.  Is  it  only  the  assent 
of  the  mind  to  the  method  by  which  God  justifies  the  ungodly  by  faith 
in  the  sacrifice  of  his  Son,  though  this  is  an  element  of  it ;  but  it  is  a 
hearty  concurrence  of  "  the  will  and  affections  with  this  plan  of  salva- 
tion, which  implies  a  renunciation  of  every  other  refuge,"  "and  an 
actual  trust  in  the  Saviour,  and  personal  apprehension  of  his  merits ; 
such  a  behef  of  the  Gospel  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  as 

2 


246  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAIIT 

leads  us  to  come  to  Christ,  to  receive  Christ,  to  trust  in  Christ,  and 
to  comrnit  the  keeping  of  our  souls  into  his  hands,  in  humble  confidence 
of  his  ability  and  his  willingness  to  save  us."  (Bunting^s  Sermon  on 
Justification.) 

This  is  that  qualifying  condition  to  which  the  promise  of  God  an- 
nexes justification ;  that  without  which  justification  would  not  take 
place ;  and  in  this  sense  it  is  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  ;  not  by  the 
merit  of  faith,  but  by  faith  instrumentally  as  this  condition,  for  its  con- 
nection with  the  benefit  arises  from  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  pro- 
mise of  God.  "  If  Christ  had  not  merited,  God  had  not  promised  ;  if 
God  had  not  promised,  justification  had  never  followed  upon  this  faith ; 
so  that  the  indissoluble  connection  of  faith  and  justification  is  from 
God's  institution,  whereby  he  hath  bound  himself  to  give  the  benefit 
upon  performance  of  the  condition.  Yet  there  is  an  aptitude  in  this 
faith  to  be  made  a  condition,  for  no  other  act  can  receive  Christ  as  a 
priest  propitiating,  and  pleading  the  propitiation,  and  the  promise  of 
God  for  his  sake  to  give  the  benefit.  As  receiving  Christ  and  the  gra- 
cious pron^ise  in  this  manner,  it  acknowledgeth  man's  guilt,  and  so  man 
renounceth  all  righteousness  in  himself,  and  honoureth  God  the  Father, 
and  Christ  the  Son,  the  only  Redeemer.  It  glorifies  God's  mercy 
and  free  grace  in  the  highest  degree.  It  acknowledgeth  on  earth,  as 
it  will  be  perpetually  acknowledged  in  heaven,  that  the  whole  salvation 
of  sinful  man,  from  the  beginning  to  the  lagt  degree  thereof,  whereof 
there  shall  be  no  end,  is  from  God's  freest  love,  Christ's  merit  and  inter- 
cession, his  own  gracious  promise,  and  the  power  of  his  own  Holy 
Spirit."  {Lawson.) 

Justification  by  faith  alone  is  thus  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  it  was  this  great  doctrine  brought  forth  again  from  the 
Scriptures  into  public  view,  and  maintained  by  their  authority,  which 
•constituted  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  the  reformation  from  popery ;  and 
on  which  no  compromise  could  be  allowed  with  that  corrupt  Church 
which  had  substituted  for  it  the  merit  of  works.  Melancthon,  in  his  Apo- 
logy for  the  Augsburg  Confession,  thus  speaks : — "  To  represent  justifica- 
tion by  faith  only  has  been  considered  objectionable,  though  Paul  concludes 
that  '  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law  ;'  '  that 
we  are  justified  freely  by  his  grace,'  and  *  that  it  is  the  gift  of  God,  not 
of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.'  If  the  use  of  the  exclusive  term 
only  is  deemed  inadmissible,  let  them  expunge  from  the  writings  of  the 
apostles  the  exclusive  phrases,  '  hy  graced  '  not  of  works,''  *  the  gift  of 
God,^  and  others  of  similar  import."  "  We  are  accounted  righteous 
before  God,"  says  the  eleventh  Article  of  the  Church  of  England, 
"only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith,  not  for  our 
works  and  deservings ;"  and  again,  in  the  Homily  on  Salvation,  "  St. 
Paul  declares  nothing  upon  the  behalf  of  man,  concerning  his  justifica- 
2  ' 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  247 

tion,  but  only  a  true  and  lively  faith,  which,  nevertheless,  is  the  gift 
of  God  and  not  man's  only  work  without  God.  And  yet  that  faith  doth 
not  shut  out  repentance,  hope,  love,  dread,  and  the  fear  of  God,  to  be 
joined  with  faith  in  every  nnan  that  is  justified  ;  but  only  shutteth  them 
out  from  the  office  of  justifying.  So  that  although  they  be  all  present 
together  in  him  that  is  justified,  yet  they  justify  not  altogether." 

It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to  suppose,  as  many  have  done,  that  the  doc 
trine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  is  pecuharly  a  Calvinistic  one.  It 
has,  in  consequence,  often  been  attacked  under  this  mistake,  and  con, 
founded  with  the  peculiarities  of  that  system,  by  writers  of  limited  read- 
ing, or  perverting  ingenuity.  It  is  the  doctrine,  as  we  have  seen,  not 
of  the  Calvinistic  confessions  only,  but  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  of 
the  Church  of  England.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Dutch  Remon- 
strants,  at  least  of  the  early  divines  of  that  party ;  and  though  among 
many  divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  errors  of  popery  on  the 
subject  of  justification  have  had  their  influence,  and  some,  who  have 
contended  for  justification  by  faith  alone,  have  lowered  the  Scriptural 
standard  of  believing,  the  doctrine  itself  has  often  been  very  ably  main- 
tained by  its  later  non-Calvinislic  divines.  Thus  justification  by  faith  alone ; 
faith  which  excludes  all  works,  both  of  the  ceremonial  and  moral  law  ; 
all  works  performed  by  Gentiles  under  the  law  of  nature ;  all  works  of 
evangehcal  obedience,  though  they  spring  from  faith  ;  has  been  defended 
by  Whitby,  in  the  preface  to  his  notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
though  he  was  a  decided  anti-Calvinist.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
many  others  ;  and  we  may,  finally,  refer  to  Mr.  Wesley,  who  revived, 
by  his  preaching  and  writings,  an  evangelical  Arminianism  in  this 
country  ;  and  who  has  most  clearly  and  ably  established  this  truth  in 
connection  with  the  doctrine  of  general  redemption,  and  God's  universal 
love  to  man. 

"  By  affirming  that  faith  is  the  term  or  condition  of  justiji cation,  I 
mean,  first,  that  there  is  no  justification  without  it.  '  He  that  believ- 
eth  not  is  condemned  already,'  and  so  long  as  he  believeth  not,  that 
condemnation  cannot  be  removed,  but  the  *  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him,' 
As  '  there  is  no  other  name  given  under  heaven,  than  that  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,'  no  other  merit  whereby  a  condemned  sinner  can  ever  be  saved 
from  the  guilt  of  sin ;  so  there  is  no  other  way  of  obtaining  a  share  in 
his  merit,  than  by  faith  in  his  name.  So  that,  as  long  as  we  are 
without  this  faith,  we  are  '  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise,  we 
are  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  without  God  in  the 
world.'  Whatsoever  virtues  (so  called)  a  man  may  have,  I  speak  of 
those  unto  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached ;  for  '  what  have  I  to  do  to 
judge  them  that  are  without  V  Whatsoever  good  works  (so  accounted) 
he  may  do,  it  profiteth  not ;  he  is  still  a  child  of  wrath,  still  under  the 
curse,  till  he  believe  in  Jesus. 


248  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  Faith,  therefore,  is  the  necessary  condition  of  justification.  Yea, 
and  the  only  necessary  condition  thereof.  This  is  the  second  point 
carefully  to  be  observed  ;  that  the  very  moment  God  giveth  faith  (lor  it 
is  the  gift  of  God)  to  the  '  ungodly,  that  worketh  not,'  that  '  faith  is 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness.'  He  hath  no  righteousness  at  all 
antecedent  to  this,  not  so  much  as  negative  righteousness,  or  innocence. 
But  '  faith  is  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness,'  the  very  moment  that 
he  believeth.  Not  that  God  (as  was  observed  before)  thinketh  him  to 
be  what  he  is  not.  But  as  '  he  made  Christ  to  be  a  sin  offering  for  us,' 
that  is,  treated  him  as  a  sinner,  punished  him  for  our  sins  ;  so  he  count- 
eth  us  righteous,  from  the  time  we  believe  in  him ;  that  is,  he  doth  not 
punish  us  for  our  sins,  yea,  treats  us  as  though  we  were  guiltless  and 
righteous. 

"  Surely  the  difficulty  of  assenting  to  the  proposition,  that  faith  is  the 
only  condition  of  justification,  must  arise  fronqi  not  understanding  it. — 
We  mean  thereby  this  much,  that  it  is  the  only  thing,  without  which  no 
one  is  justified  ;  the  only  thing  that  is  immediately,  indispensably,  abso- 
lutely requisite  in  order  to  pardon.  As,  on  the  one  hand,  though  a  man 
should  have  every  thing  else,  without  faith,  yet  he  cannot  be  justified  ; 
so  on  the  other,  though  he  be  supposed  to  want  every  thing  else,  yet  if 
he  hath  faith,  he  cannot  but  be  justified.  For  suppose  a  sinner  of  any 
kind  or  degree,  in  a  full  sense  of  his  total  ungodliness,  of  his  utter 
inability  to  think,  speak,  or  do  good,  and  his  absolute  meetness  for  hell 
fire^:  suppose,  I  say,  this  sinner,  helpless  and  hopeless,  casts  himself 
wholly  on  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  (which  indeed  he  cannot  do  but 
by  the  grace  of  God,)  who  can  doubt  but  he  is  forgiven  in  that  moment? 
Who  will  affirm,  that  any  more  is  indispensably  required,  before  that 
sinner  can  be  justified?"  {Wesleyh Sermons.) 

To  the  view  of  justifying  faith  we  have  attempted  to  establish, 
namely,  the  entire  trust  and  reliance  of  an  awakened  and  penitent 
sinner,  in  the  atonement  of  Christ  alone,  as  the  meritorious  ground  of 
his  pardon,  some  objections  have  been  made,  and  some  contrary  hypo- 
theses opposed,  which  it  will  be  necessary  to  bring  to  the  test  of  the 
word  of  God. 

The  general  objection  is,  that  it  is  a  doctrine  unfavourable  to  mo- 
rality. This  was  the  objection  in  St.  Paul's  day,  and  it  has  been 
urged  through  all  ages  ever  since.  It  proceeds,  however,  upon  a  great 
misapprehension  of  the  doctrine ;  and  has  sometimes  been  suggested  by 
that  real  abuse  of  it,  to  which  all  truth  is  liable  by  men  of  perverted 
minds  and  corrupted  hearts.  Some  of  these  have  pretended,  or  de- 
ceived themselves  into  the  conclusion,  that  if  the  atonement  made  for 
sin  by  the  death  of  Christ  only  be  rehed  upon,  however  presumptuously, 
the  sins  which  they  commit  will  be  forgiven  ;  and  that  there  is  no  motive, 
at  least  from  fear  of  consequences,  to  avoid  sin.  Others  observing  this 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  249 

abuse,  or  misled,  probably,  by  incautious  statements  of  sincere  persons 
on  this  point,  have  concluded  this  to  be  the  logical  consequence  of  the 
doctrine,  however  innocently  it  may  sometimes  be  held.  Attempts 
have,  therefore,  been  made  to  guard  the  doctrine,  and  from  these, 
on  the  other  hand,  errors  have  arisen.  The  Romish  Church  contends 
for  justification  by  inherent  righteousness,  and  makes  faith  a  part  of 
that  righteousness.  Others  contend,  that  faith  signifies  obedience ; 
others  place  justification  in  faith  and  good  works  united ;  others  hold 
that  faith  gives  us  an  interest  in  the  merit  of  Christ,  to  make  up 
the  deficiency  of  a  sincere  but  imperfect  obedience ;  others  think  that 
true  faith  is  in  itself  essentially,  and,  per  se,  the  necessary  root  of 
obedience. 

The  proper  answer  to  the  objection,  that  justification  by  faith  alone 
leads  to  licentiousness,  is,  that  "  though  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,''^ 
the  faith  by  which  we  are  justified  is  not  alone  in  the  heart  which  exer- 
cises it.  In  receiving  Christ,  as  the  writers  of  the  reformation  often 
say,  "  faith  is  sola,  yet  not  solitaria.^^  It  is  not  the  trust  of  a  man  asleep* 
and  secure,  but  the  trust  of  one  awakened  and  aware  of  the  peril  of 
eternal  death,  as  the  wages  of  sin ;  it  is  not  the  trust  of  a  man  ignorant 
of  the  spiritual  meaning  of  God's  holy  law  ;  but  of  one  who  is  convinced 
and  "  slain"  by  it ;  not  the  trust  of  an  impenitent,  but  of  a  penitent  man  ; 
the  trust  of  one,  in  a  word,  who  feels,  through  the  convincing  power  of 
the  word  and  Spirit  of  God,  that  he  is  justly  exposed  to  wrath,  and  in 
whom  this  conviction  produces  a  genuine  sorrow  for  sin,  and  an  intense 
and  supreme  desire  to  be  delivered  from  its  penalty  and  dominion.  Now 
that  all  this  is  substantially,  or  more  particularly,  in  the  experience  of 
all  who  pass  into  this  state  of  justification  through  faith,  is  manifest  from 
the  seventh  and  eighth  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which 
the  moral  state  of  man  is  traced  in  the  experience  of  St.  Paul  as  an 
example,  from  his  conviction  for  sin  by  the  law  of  God,  revealed  to  him 
in  its  spirituality,  to  his  entrance  into  the  condition  and  privileges  of  a 
justified  state.  We  see  here,  guilt,  fear,  a  vain  struggle  with  bondage, 
poignant  distress,  self  despair,  readiness  to  submit  to  any  effectual  mode 
of  deliverance  which  may  be  oflfered,  acceptance  of  salvation  by  Christ, 
the  immediate  removal  of  condemnation,  dominion  over  sin,  with  all  the 
fruits  of  regeneration,  and  the  lofty  liopes  of  the  glory  of  God.  So  far, 
then,  is  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone  from  leading  to  a  loose 
and  careless  conduct,  that  that  very  state  of  mind  in  which  alone  this 
faith  can  bo  exercised,  is  one  which  excites  the  most  earnest  longings 
and  efforts  of  mind  to  be  free  from  the  bondage  of  sin,  as  well  as  from 
its  penalty ;  and  to  be  free  from  its  penalty  in  order  that  freedom  from 
its  bondage  may  follow.  As  this  is  proved  by  the  seventh  chapter  of 
the  epistle  referred  to,  so  the  former  part  of  the  eighth,  which  continues 
the  discourse,  (unfortunately  broken  by  the  division  of  the  chapters,) 


250  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

shows  the  moral  state  which  is  the  immediate  result  of  "  being  in  Christ 
Jesus,"  through  the  exercise  of  that  faith  which  alone,  as  we  have  seen, 
can  give  us  a  personal  interest  in  him.  "  There  is  now  no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  This  is  the  first  result  of  the  pardon 
of  sin,  a  consequent  exemption  from  condemnation.  The  next  is  mani- 
festly concomitant  with  it, — "  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the 
Spirit"  which  is  now  in  its  fulness  imparted  to  them ;  and  by  which, 
being  regenerated,  they  are  delivered  from  the  bondage  before  described, 
and  "  walk"  after  his  will,  and  under  his  sanctifying  influence.  This 
brings  us  precisely  to  the  answer  which  the  apostle  himself  gives  to  the 
objection  to  which  we  are  referring,  in  the  sixth  chapter — "  What  shall 
we  say  then  ?  shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God 
forbid  ;  how  shall  we  who  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?"  The 
moral  state  of  every  man  who  is  justified,  is  here  described  to  be,  that 
he  is  "  dead  to  sin."  Not  that  justification  strictly  is  a  death  unto  sin, 
or  regeneration ;  but  into  this  state  it  immediately  brings  us,  so  that, 
though  they  are  properly  distinguished  in  the  order  of  our  thoughts,  and 
in  the  nature  of  things,  they  go  together  ;  he  to  whom  "  there  is  no  con- 
demnation," walks  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit ;  and  he  who 
experiences  the  "  abounding  of  the  grace  of  God"  in  his  pardon,  is 
"dead  to  sin,"  and  cannot,  therefore,  continue  therein.  This  is  the 
effect  of  the  faith  that  justifies  ;  from  that  alone,  as  it  brings  us  to  Christ 
our  deliverer,  our  entire  deliverance  from  sin  can  follow ;  and  thus  the 
doctrine  of  faith  becomes  exclusively  the  doctrine  of  hohness,  and  points 
out  the  only  remedy  for  sin's  dominion. 

It  is  true,  that  some  colour  would  be  given  to  the  contrary  opinion, 
were  it  to  be  admitted,  that  this  act  of  faith,  followed  by  our  justification, 
did  indefeasibly  settle  our  right  to  eternal  blessedness  by  a  title  not  to 
be  vitiated  by  any  future  transgression  ;  but  this  doctrine,  which  forms 
a  part  of  the  theory  of  the  Calvinists,  we  shall,  in  its  place,  sLow  to  be 
unscriptural.  It  is  enough  here  to  say,  that  it  has  no  connection  with 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  though  so  often  ignorantly 
identified  with  it.  Or.r  probation  is  not  terminated  by  our  pardon. 
Wilful  sin  will  infallibly  plunge  us  again  into  condemnation,  with  height- 
ened  aggravations  and  hazards  ;  and  he  only  retains  this  state  of  favour 
who  continues  to  believe  with  that  same  faith  which  brings  back  to  him, 
not  only  the  assurances  of  God's  mercy,  but  the  continually  renewing 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  as  stated  in  the  Scriptures, 
needs  not,  therefore,  any  of  those  guards  and  cautions  which  we  have 
enumerated  above,  and  which  all  involve  serious  errors,  v/hich  it  may 
not  be  useless  to  point  out. 

1.  The  error  of  the  Romish  Church  is  to  confound  justification  and 
sanctificafion.  So  the  council  of  Trent  declares,  that  "justification  is  not 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    IIVSTITUTKS,  251 

only  the  remission  of  sins,  but  also  the  sanctification  of  the  inner  man ; 
and  that  the  only  formal  cause  of  justification  is  the  righteousness  of  God, 
not  that  whereby  he  is  just,  but  that  by  which  he  makes  us  just ;"  that 
is,  inherently  so.  That  justification  and  sanctification  go  together,  we 
have  seen  ;  but  this  is  not  what  is  meant  by  the  council.  Their  doctrine 
is,  that  man  is  made  just  or  holy,  and  then  justified.  The  answer  to 
this  has  been  already  given.  God  "justifieth  the  ungodly;"  and  the 
Scriptures  plainly  mean  by  justification,  not  sanctification,  but  simply 
the  remission  of  sia,  as  already  established.  The  passages,  also,  above 
quoted,  show  that  those  who  hold  this  doctrine  reverse  the  order  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  sanctification  which  constitutes  a  man  inherently  right- 
eous, is  concomitant  with  justification,  but  does  not  precede  it.  Before 
"  condemnation"  is  taken  away,  he  cries  out,  "  O  wretched  man  that  I 
am,  who  shall  dehver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ;"  when  "  there 
is  now  no  condemnation,"  he  "  walks  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit."  In  the  nature  of  things,  too,  justification  and  sanctification  are 
distinct.  The  active  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  taken  in  itself,  either 
habitually  or  actually,  and  as  inherent  in  us,  can  in  nowise  be  justifica- 
tion, for  justification  is  the  remission  of  sins.  God  gave  this  Spirit  to 
angels,  he  gave  it  to  Adam  in  the  day  of  creation,  and  this  Spirit  did 
sanctify,  and  now  doth  sanctify  the  blessed  angels,  yet  this  sanctification 
is  not  remission.  Sanctification  cannot  be  the  formal  cause  of  justifica- 
tion, any  more  than  justification  can  be  the  formal  cause  of  glorification ; 
for  however  all  these  may  be  connected,  they  are  things  perfectly  dis- 
tinct and  different  in  their  nature.  "  There  be  two  kinds  of  Christian 
righteousness,"  says  Hooker,  "  the  one  without  us,  which  we  have  by 
imputation  ;  the  other  in  us,  which  consisteth  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity, 
and  other  Christian  virtues.  God  giveth  us  both  the  one  justice  and 
the  other ;  the  one  by  accepting  us  for  righteous  in  Christ,  the  other 
by  working  Christian  righteousness  in  us."  (Discourse  of  Justification.)  \ 
2.  To  the  next  opinion,  that  justifying  faith,  in  the  Christian  sense, 
includes  works  of  evangelical  obedience,  and  is  not,  therefore,  simple 
affiance  or  fiducial  assent,  the  answer  of  Whitby  is  forcible : — "  The 
Scripture  is  express  and  frequent  in  the  assertion,  that  believers  are  justi- 
fied by  faith,  in  which  expression  either  faith  must  include  works,  or  evan- 
gelical obedience,  or  it  doth  not :  if  it  doth  not,  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone ; 
and  that  it  doth  not  formally  include  works  of  evangelical  rifjhteousness 
appears,  1.  From  the  plain  distinction  which  the  Scripture  puts  between 
them,  when  it  informs  us  that  faith  works  by  love,  is  shown  forth  by  our 
works,  and  exhorts  us  to  add  to  our  faith  virtue,  to  virtue  knowledge  ; 
and,  2.  Because  it  is  not  reasonable  to  conceive,  that  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  making  use  of  a  word  which  had  a  known  and  fixed  import, 
should  mean  more  by  this  word  than  what  it  sicrnified  in  common  use, 
?5  sure  they  must  have  done,  had  they  included  in  the  meaning  of  the 


252  THEOLOGICAI.    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

word  the  whole  of  our  evangeUcal  righteousness."  {Preface  to  Galatians.) 
To  this  we  may  add,  that  in  every  discourse  of  St.  Paul,  as  to  our  justi- 
fication,  faith  and  works  are  opposed  to  each  other ;  and  farther,  that 
his  argument  necessarily  excludes  works  of  evangelical  obedience.  For 
as  it  clearly  excludes  all  works  of  ceremonial  law,  so  also  all  works  of 
obedience  to  the  moral  law ;  and  that  not  with  any  reference  to  their 
degree,  as  perfect  or  imperfect,  but  with  reference  to  their  nature  as 
works  ;  so  then,  for  this  same  reason  must  all  works  of  evangelical 
obedience  be  excluded  from  the  office  of  justifying,  for  they  are  also 
moral  works,  works  of  obedience  to  the  same  law,  which  is  in  force 
under  the  Gospel ;  and  however  they  may  be  performed ;  whether  by 
the  assistance  of  the  Spirit,  or  without  that  assistance ;  whether  they 
spring  from  faith  or  any  other  principle,  these  are  mere  circumstances 
which  alter  not  the  nature  of  the  acts  themselves,  they  are  works  still, 
and  are  opposed  by  the  apostle  to  grace  and  faith.  "  And  if  by  grace, 
then  it  is  no  more  of  works ;  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace ;  but  if 
it  be  of  works,  then  is  it  no  more  (of)  grace,  otherwise  work  is  no  more 
work,"  Rom.  xi,  6. 

3.  A  third  notion  which  has  been  adopted  to  guard  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  is,  that  faith  apprehends  and  appropriates  the 
merits  of  Christ  to  make  up  for  the  deficiency  of  our  imperfect  obedi- 
ence. There  must,  therefore,  be  a  sincere  endeavour  after  obedience, 
and  in  this  the  required  guard  is  supposed  to  lie ;  but  to  secure  justifi- 
cation where  obedience  is  still  imperfect  though  sincere,  requires  faith. 

It  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  this  theory,  that  no  intimation  is  given 
of  it  in  Scripture,  and  it  is  indeed  contradicted  by  it.  Either  this  sincere 
and  imperfect  obedience  has  its  share  in  our  justification,  or  it  has  not ; 
if  it  has,  we  are  justified  by  works  and  faith  united,  which  has  just  been 
disproved  ;  if  it  has  not,  then  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  in  the  man- 
ner before  explained. 

4.  The  last  error  referred  to  is  that  which  represents  faith  as,  per  se, 
the  necessary  root  of  obedience  :  so  that  justification  by  faith  alone 
may  be  allowed ;  but  then  the  guard  against  abuse  is  said  to  lie  in  this, 
that  true  faith  is  itself  so  eminent  a  virtue,  that  it  naturally  produces 
good  works. 

The  objection  to  this  statement  lies  not  indeed  so  much  to  the  sub- 
stantial truth  of  the  doctrine  taught  by  it,  or  to  what  is  perhaps  intended 
by  most  of  those  who  so  speak,  for  similar  modes  of  expression  we  find 
in  the  writings  of  many  of  the  elder  divines  of  the  reformation,  who 
most  strenuously  advocated  justification  by  faith  alone ;  but  to  the  view 
under  which  it  is  presented.  Faith,  when  genuine,  is  necessarily  the 
"  root  and  mother  of  obedience  ;"  good  works  of  every  kind,  without 
exception,  do  also  necessarily  spring  from  it ;  but  though  we  say  neces- 
sarily ^  yet  we  do  not  say  naturally.     The  error  lies  in  considering  faith 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  253 

in  Christ  as  so  eminently  a  virtue,  so  great  an  act  of  obedience,  that  it 
must  always  argue  a  converted  and  renewed  state  of  mind  wherever  it 
exists,  from  which,  therefore,  obedience  must  flow.  We  have,  however, 
seen  that  regeneration  does  not  precede  justification  ;  that  till  justifica- 
tion man  is  under  bondage,  and  that  he  does  not  "  walk  after  the  Spirit," 
until  he  is  so  "  in  Christ  Jesus ;"  that  to  him  "  there  is  now  no  con- 
demnation ;"  yet  faith,  all  acknowledge,  must  precede  justification,  and 
it  cannot,  therefore,  presuppose  a  regenerate  state  of  mind.  The  truth, 
then,  is,  that  faith  does  not  produce  obedience  by  any  virtue  there  is  in 
it,  per  se ;  nor  as  it  supposes  a  previous  renewal  of  heart ;  but  as  it 
unites  to  Christ,  gives  us  a  personal  interest  in  the  covenant  of  God's 
mercy,  and  obtains  for  us,  as  an  accomplished  condition,  our  justifica- 
tion, from  which  flow  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  regeneration 
of  our  nature.  The  strength  of  faith  lies  not,  then,  in  what  it  is  in  itself, 
but  in  what  it  interests  us  in  ;  it  necessarily  leads  to  good  works,  because 
it  necessarily  leads  to  justification,  on  which  immediately  follows  our 
"new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus  to  good  works,  that  we  may  walk  in 
them." 

There  are  yet  a  few  theories  on  the  subject  of  justification  to  be 
stated  and  examined,  which,  however,  the  principles  already  estabhshed 
will  enable  us  briefly  to  dismiss. 

That  of  the  Romish  Church,  which  confounds  sanctification  with 
justification,  has  been  already  noticed.  The  influence  of  this  theory 
may  be  traced  in  the  writings  of  some  leading  divines  of  the  English 
Church,  who  were  not  fully  imbued  with  the  doctrines  of  the  reformers 
on  this  great  point,  such  as  Bishop  Taylor,  Achbishop  Tillotson,  and 
others,  who  make  regeneration  necessary  to  justification  ;  and  also  in 
many  divines  of  the  Calvinistic  nonconformist  class,  who  make  regene- 
ration, also,  to  precede  justification,  though  not  hke  the  former,  as  a 
condition  of  it. 

The  source  of  this  error  appears  to  be  twofold. 

It  arises,  first,  from  a  loose  and  general  notion  of  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  regeneration  ;  and,  secondly,  from  confounding  that  change 
which  true  evangelical  repentance  doubtless  imphes,  with  regeneration 
itself.     A  few  observations  will  dissipate  these  erroneous  impressions. 

As  to  those  previous  changes  of  mind  and  conduct,  which  they  often 
argue  from,  as  proving  a  new  state  of  mind  and  character,  they  are  far 
from  marking  that  defined  and  unequivocal  state  of  renovation,  which 
our  Lord  expresses  by  the  phrases  "born  again,"  and  "born  of  the  Spi- 
rit,"  and  which  St.  Paul  evidently  explains  by  being  "  created  anew," 
"  a  new  creation ;"  "  living  after  the  Spirit,"  and  "  walking  in  the  Spi- 
rit." In  the  established  order  in  which  God  elTects  this  mighty  renova- 
tion  of  a  nature  previously  corrupt,  in  answer  to  prayers  directed  to 
him,  with  confidence  in  his  promises  to  that  effect  in  Christ  Jesus,  there 


254  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

must  be  a  previous  process,  which  divines  have  called  by  the  expressive 
names  of  "  awakening,"  and  "  conviction  ;"  that  is,  the  sleep  of  indiffer- 
ence to  spiritual  concerns  is  removed,  and  conviction  of  the  sad  facts 
of  the  case  of  a  man  who  has  hitherto  hved  in  sin,  and  under  the  sole 
dominion  of  a  carnal  and  earthly  mind,  is  fixed  in  the  judgment  and 
the  conscience.  From  this  arises  an  altered  and  a  corrected  view  of 
things  ;  apprehension  of  danger  ;  desire  of  deliverance  ;  abhorrence  of 
the  evils  of  the  heart  and  the  life ;  strong  efforts  for  freedom,  resisted 
however  by  the  bondage  of  established  habits  and  innate  corruptions  ;  and 
a  still  deeper  sense,  in  consequence,  of  the  need  not  only  of  pardon,  but 
of  that  almighty  and  renewing  influence  which  alone  can  effect  the  de- 
sired change.  It  is  in  this  state  of  mind,  that  the  prayer  becomes  at 
once  heartfelt  and  appropriate,  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and 
renew  a  right  spirit  within  me." 

But  all  this  is  not  regeneration  ;  it  is  rather  the  effect  of  the  full  and 
painful  discovery  of  the  want  of  it ;  nor  will  "  fruits  meet  for  repent- 
ance," the  effects  of  an  alarmed  conscience,  and  of  a  corrected  judg- 
ment ;  the  efforts  to  be  right,  however  imperfect ;  which  are  the  signs, 
we  also  grant,  of  sincerity,  prove  more  than  that  the  preparatory  pro- 
cess is  going  on  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Others  may 
endeavour  to  persuade  a  person  in  this  state  of  mind  that  he  is  regene- 
rate, but  the  absence  of  love  to  God  as  his  reconciled  Father  ;  the  evils 
which  he  detests  having  still,  in  many  respects,  the  dominion  over  him ; 
the  resistance  of  his  heart  to  the  unaccustomed  yoke,  when  the  sharp 
pangs  of  his  convictions  do  not,  for  the  moment,   arm  him  with  new 
powers  of  contest ;  his  pride  ;  his  remaining  self  righteousness  ;  his  re- 
luctance to  be  saved  wholly  as  a  sinner,  whose  repentance  and  all  its 
fruits,  however  exact  and  copious,  merit  nothing ;  all  assure  him,  that 
even  should  he  often  feel  that  he  is  "  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God," 
he  has  not  entered  it ;  that  his  burden  is  not  removed  ;  that  his  bonds 
are  not  broken  ;  that  he  is  not  "  walking  in  the  Spirit ;"  that  he  is  at 
best  but  a  struggling  slave,  not  "  the  Lord's  free  man."     But  there  is  a 
point  which,  when  passed,  changes  the  scene.     He  believes  wholly  in 
Christ ;  he  is  justified  by  faith  ;  he  is  comforted  by  the  Spirit's  "  wit- 
nessing with  his  spirit,"  that  he  is  now  a  child  of  God ;  he  serves  God 
from  fihal  love  ;  he  has  received  new  powers  ;  the  chain  of  his  bondage 
is  broken,  and  he  is  delivered ;  he  walks  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after 
the  Spirit ;  he  is  "  dead  to  sin,  and  cannot  continue  longer  therein ;" 
and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  in  him — "  love,  joy,  peace,  gentleness, 
goodness,  meekness,  faith,  temperance."     He  is  now,  and  not  till  now, 
in  A  REGENERATE  STATE,  as  that  statc  is  described  in  the  Scriptures. 
Before  he  was  a  seeker,  now  he  has  obtained  what  he  sought :  and  he 
obtains  it  concomitantly  with  justification. 

Still  indeed  it  may  be  said,  that,  call  this  previous  state  what  you  will, 
2 


1 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  255 

either  regeneration  or  repentance,  it  is  necessary  to  justification  ;  and, 
therefore,  justification  is  not  by  fiiith  alone.  We  answer,  that  we  can- 
not  call  it  a  regenerated  state,  a  being  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  for  the 
Scriptures  do  not  so  designate  it ;  and  it  is  clear,  that  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  do  not  belong  to  it ;  and,  therefore,  there  is  an  absence,  not  of 
the  work  of  the  Spirit,  for  all  has  its  origin  there,  but  of  that  work  of 
the  Spirit  by  which  we  are  "  born  again"  strictly  and  properly.  Nor  is 
the  connection  of  this  preparatory  process  with  justification  of  the  same 
nature  as  that  of  faith  with  justification.  It  is  necessary,  it  is  true,  as 
hearing  the  word  is  necessary,  for  "  fiiith  cometh  by  hearing  ;"  and  it  is 
necessary  as  leading  to  prayer,  and  to  faith,  for  prayer  is  the  language 
of  discovered  want,  and  faith  in  another,  in  the  sense  of  trust,  is  the  re- 
sult of  self  diffidence,  and  self  despair ;  but  it  is  necessary  remotely, 
not  immediately.  This  distinction  is  clearly  and  accurately  expressed  by 
Mr.  Wesley.  {Farther  Appeal,  <^c.)  "  And  yet  I  allow  you  this,  that 
although  both  repentance  and  the  fruits  thereof,  are,  in  some  sense,  ne- 
cessary before  justification,  yet  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is  neces- 
sary in  the  same  sense,  nor  in  the  same  degree  with  faith.  Not  in  the 
same  degree  ;  for  in  whatever  moment  a  man  beheves,  in  the  Christian 
sense  of  the  word,  he  is  justified  ;  his  sins  are  blotted  out ;  his  faith  is 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  But  it  is  not  so  at  whatever  moment 
he  repents,  or  brings  forth  any  or  all  the  fruits  of  repentance.  Faith 
alone,  therefore  justifies,  which  repentance  alone  does  not ;  much  less 
any  outward  w(.rk;  and  consequently  none  of  these  are  necessary  to 
justification  in  the  same  degree  as  faith.  Nor  in  the  same  sense  ;  for 
none  of  these  has  so  direct  and  immediate  relation  to  justification  as 
faith.  This  is  proximately  necessary  thereto  ;  repentance  and  its  fruits, 
remotely,  as  these  are  necessary  to  the  increase  and  continuance  of  faith. 
And  even  in  this  sense,  these  are  only  necessary  on  supposition  that 
there  is  time  and  opportunity  for  them  ;  for  in  many  instances  there  is 
not ;  but  God  cuts  short  his  work,  and  faith  prevents  the  fruits  of  repent- 
ance. So  that  the  general  proposition  is  not  overthrown,  but  clearly 
established  by  these  concessions,  and  we  conclude  still,  both  on  the 
authority  of  Scripture  and  the  Church,  that  faith  alone  is  the  proximate 
condition  of  justification."  [Sermons.) 

If  regeneration,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  Scripture,  and  not 
loosely  and  vaguely,  as  by  many  divines,  both  ancient  and  modem,  is 
then  a  concomitant  of  justification,  it  cannot  be  a  condition  of  it ;  and 
as  we  have  shown,  that  all  the  changes  which  repentance  implies,  fall 
short  of  regeneration,  repentance  is  not  an  evidence  of  a  regenerate 
state;  and  thus  the  theory  of  justification  by  regeneration  is  untenable. 
A  second  theory,  not  indeed  substantially  different  from  the  former,  but 
put  into  different  phrase,  and  more  formally  laboured,  is  that  of  Bishop 
Bull,  which  gave  rise  to  the  celebrated  controversy  of  his  dav,  upon  the 

2 


23C)  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

publication  of  his  Harmonia  Apostolica ;  and  it  is  one  which  has  left 
the  deepest  impress  upon  the  views  of  the  clergy  of  the  English  Church, 
and  contributed  more  than  any  thing  else  to  obscure  her  true  doctrine, 
as  contained  in  her  articles  and  homihes,  on  this  leading  point  of  expe- 
rimental  theology.  This  theory  is  professedly  that  of  justification  by 
works,  with  these  quaUfications,  that  the  works  are  evangelical,  or  such 
as  proceed  from  faith ;  that  they  are  done  by  the  assistance  of  the  Spi- 
rit  of  God ;  and  that  such  works  are  not  meritorious,  but  a  necessary 
condition  of  justification.  To  establish  this  hypothesis,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  avoid  the  force  of  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  learned  prelate 
just  mentioned,  therefore,  reverses  the  usual  practice  of  commentators, 
which  is  to  reconcile  St.  James  to  St.  Paul  on  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion ;  and  assuming  that  St.  James  speaks  clearly  and  explicitly,  and 
St.  Paul,  on  this  point,  things  "  hard  to  be  understood  ;"  he  interprets 
the  latter  by  the  former,  and  reconciles  St.  Paul  to  St.  James.  Accord- 
ing then  to  this  opinion,  St.  James  explicitly  asserts  the  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification of  sinful  men  before  God  by  the  works  which  proceed  from 
faith  in  Christ :  St.  Paul,  therefore,  when  he  denies  that  man  can  be 
justified  by  works,  refers  simply  to  works  of  obedience  to  the  Mosaic 
law  ;  and  by  the  faith  which  justifies,  he  means  the  works  which  spring 
from  faith.     Thus  the  two  apostles  are  harmonized  by  Bishop  Bull. 

The  main  pillar  of  this  scheme  is,  that  St.  James  teaches  the  doctrine 
of  justification  before  God  by  works  springing  from  faith  in  Christ ;  and  ^ 
as  it  is  necessary  in  a  discourse  on  justification,  to  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing  of  this  apostle,  in  the  passages  referred  to,  both  because  his  words 
may  appear  to  form  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  which  we  have  established  ;  and,  also,  on  account  of  the  mislead- 
ing statements  which  are  found  in  many  of  the  attempts  which  have 
been  made  to  reconcile  the  two  apostles,  this  may  be  a  proper  place 
for  that  inquiry ;  the  result  of  which  will  show,  that  Bishop  Bull  and 
the  divines  of  that  school,  have  as  greatly  mistaken  St.  James  as  they 
have  mistaken  St.  Paul. 

We  observe  then,  1.  That  to  interpret  St.  Paul  by  St.  James,  involvei 
this  manifest  absurdity,  that  it  is  interpreting  a  writer  who  treats  pro- 
fessedly, and  in  a  set  discourse,  on  the  subject  in  question,  the  justifica- 
tion of  a  sinful  man  before  God,  by  a  writer  who,  if  he  could  be  allow- 
ed to  treat  of  that  subject  with  the  same  design,  does  it  but  incidentally. 
This  itself  makes  it  clear,  that  the  great  axiomata,  the  principles  of  this 
doctrine,  must  be  first  sought  for  in  the  writer  who  enters  professedly, 
and  by  copious  argument,  into  the  inquiry. 

But,  2.  The  two  apostles  do  not  engage  in  the  same  argument,  and 

for  this  reason,  that  they  are  not  addressing  themselves  to  persons  in 

the  same  circumstances.     St.  Paul  addresses  the  unbelieving  Jews,  who 

sought  justification  by  obedience  to  the  law  of  Moses,  moral  and  cere- 

2 


i 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  257 

monial ;  proves  that  all  men  are  guilty,  and  that  neither  Jew  nor  Gen- 
tile can  be  justified  by  works  of  obedience  to  any  law,  and  that  there- 
fore, justification  must  be  by  faith  alone.  On  the  other  hand,  St. 
James,  having  to  do,  in  his  epistle  with  such  as  professed  the  Christian 
faith  and  justification  by  it,  but  erring  dangerously  about  the  nature  of 
faith,  affirming  that  faith,  in  the  sense  of  opinion  or  mere  belief  of  doc- 
trine, would  save  them,  though  they  should  remain  destitute  of  a  real 
change  in  the  moral  frame  and  constitution  of  their  minds,  and  give  no 
evidence  of  this  in  a  holy  life,  it  became  necessary  for  him  to  plead  the 
renovation  of  man's  nature,  and  evangelical  obedience,  £ls  the  necessary 
fruits  of  real  or  living  faith.  The  question  discussed  by  St.  Paul  is, 
whether  works  would  justify ;  that  by  St.  James  is,  whether  a  dead 
faith,  the  mere  faith  of  assent  would  save. 

3.  St.  Paul  and  St.  James  do  not  use  the  term  justification  in  the  same 
sense.  The  former  uses  it  as  we  have  seen,  for  the  pardon  of  sin,  the 
accepting  and  treating  as  righteous  one  who  is  guilty  but  penitent.  But, 
that  St.  James  does  not  speak  of  this  kind  of  justification  is  most  evident, 
from  his  reference  to  the  case  of  Abraham.  "  Was  not  Abraham,  our 
Father,  justified  by  works,  when  he  had  offered  Isaac  his  son  upon  the 
altar?"  Does  St.  James  mean,  that  Abraham  was  then  justified  in  the 
sense  of  being  forgiven?  Certainly  not ;  for  St.  Paul,  when  speaking  of 
the  justification  of  Abrahani,  in  the  sense  of  his  forgiveness  before  God, 
by  the  imputation  of  his  faith  for  righteousness,  fixes  that  event  many 
years  previously,  even  before  Isaac  was  born,  and  when  the  promise  of 
a  seed  was  made  to  him ;  for  it  is  added  by  Moses  when  he  gives  an 
account  of  this  transaction,  Gen.  xv,  6,  "  And  he  believed  in  the  Lord, 
and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness."  If  then,  St.  James  speaks 
of  the  same  kind  of  justification,  he  contradicts  St.  Paul  and  Moses,  by 
implying  that  Abraham  was  not  pardoned  and  received  into  God's 
favour,  until  the  offering  of  Isaac.  If  no  one  will  maintain  this,  then  the 
justification  of  Abraham,  mentioned  by  St.  James,  it  is  plain,  does  not 
mean  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins,  and  he  uses  the  term  in  a  difl^erent  sense 
to  St.  Paul. 

4.  The  only  sense,  then,  in  which  St.  James  can  take  the  term  justi- 
fication,  when  he  says  that  Abraham  was  "  justified  by  works,  when  he 
had  offered  Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar,"  is,  that  his  works  manifested 
or  proved  that  he  was  justified,  proved  that  he  was  really  justified  by  faith, 
or,  in  other  words,  that  the  faith  by  which  he  was  justified,  was  not  dead 
and  inoperative,  but  Uving  and  active.  This  is  abundantly  confirmed 
by  what  follows.  So  far  is  St.  James  from  denying  that  Abraham  was 
justified  by  the  imputation  of  his  faith  for  righteousness,  long  before  he 
offered  up  his  son  Isaac,  that  he  expressly  allows  it  by  quoting  the  pas- 
sage. Gen.  XV,  6,  in  which  this  is  said  to  have  taken  place  at  least  twenty- 
five  years  before ;  and  he  makes  use  of  his  subsequent  works  in  the 

Vol.  II.  17 


^68  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

argument,  expressly  to  illustrate  the  vital  and  obedient  nature  of  the 
faith  by  which  he  was  at  first  justified.  "  Seest  thou  how  faith  wrought 
with  his  works,  and  by  works  was  his  faith  made  perfect,  and  the  scrip- 
ture  was  fulfilled,  which  saith,  *  Abraham  believed  God,'  (in  a  trans- 
action twenty.five  years  previous,)  « and  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  right- 
eousness,  and  he  was  called  the  friend  of  God.' "  This  quotation  of 
James,  from  Gen.  xv,  6,  demands  special  notice.  "  And  the  scripture," 
he  says,  ^' was  fulfilled,  which  saith,"  &;c.  Whitby  paraphrases,  ^^was 
again  fulfilled  ;"  some  other  commentators  say  it  "  was  twice  fulfilled," 
in  the  transaction  of  Isaac,  and  at  the  previous  period  to  which  the 
quotation  refers.  These  comments  are,  however,  hasty,  darken  the 
argument  of  St.  James,  and  have,  indeed,  no  discernible  meaning 
at  all.  For  do  they  mean  that  Abraham  was  twice  justified,  in  the 
sense  of  being  twice  pardoned ;  or  that  his  justification  was  begun  at 
one  of  the  periods  referred  to,  and  finished  twenty-five  years  afterward  ? 
These  are  absurdities  ;  and  if  they  will  not  maintain  them,  in  what  sense 
do  they  understand  St.  James  to  use  the  phrase,  "  and  the  scripture  was 
fulfilled  ?"  The  scripture  alluded  to  by  St.  James  is  that  given  above, 
"  and  he  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness." 
When  was  the  first  fulfilment  of  this  scripture,  of  which  they  speak  1  It 
could  not  be  in  the  transaction  of  Abraham's  proper  justification,  through 
his  faith  in  the  promise  respecting  "  his  seed,"  as  mentioned.  Gen.  xv,  6, 
for  that  scripture  is  an  historical  narration  of  the  fact  of  that,  his  justifi*. 
cation.  The  fact,  then,  was  not  a  fulfilment  of  that  part  of  Scripture, 
but  that  part  of  Scripture  a  subsequent  narration  of  the  fact.  The  only 
fulfilment,  consequently,  that  it  had,  was  in  the  transaction  adduced  by 
St.  James,  the  offering  of  Isaac  ;  but  if  Abraham  had  been,  in  the  pro- 
per sense,  justified  then,  that  event  could  be  no  fulfilment,  in  their  sense, 
of  a  scripture  which  is  a  narrative  of  what  was  done  twenty-five  years 
before,  and  which  relates  only  to  what  God  then  did,  namely,  "count 
the  faith  of  Abraham  to  him  for  righteousness."  The  only  senses  in  which 
the  term  "  fulfil"  can  be  taken  in  this  passage  are,  that  of  accomplish' 
ment,  or  that  of  illustration  and  estahlishment.  The  first  cannot  apply 
here,  for  the  passage  is  neither  typical  nor  prophetic,  and  we  are  left, 
therefore,  to  the  second  ;  "  and  the  scripture  was  fulfilled,"  illustrated, 
and  confirmed,  which  saith,  "  Abraham  believed  in  God,  and  it  was  im- 
puted unto  him  for  righteousness."  It  was  established  and  confirmed 
that  he  was,  in  truth,  a  man  truly  justified  of  God,  and  that  the  faith  by 
which  he  was  justified  was  living  and  operative. 

5.  As  St.  James  does  not  use  the  term  justification  in  the  sense  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sin,  when  he  speaks  of  the  justification  of  Abraham  by 
works,  so  neither  can  he  use  it  in  this  sense  in  the  general  conclusion 
which  he  draws  from  it ;  "  Ye  see,  then,  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justi- 
fied, and  not  by  faith  only."  The  ground  on  which  he  rests  this  generd 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  259 

inference  is  the  declarative  justification  of  Abraham,  which  resulted  from 
his  lofty  act  of  obedience,  in  the  case  of  Isaac,  and  which  was  eminently 
itself  an  act  of  obedient  faith  ;  and  the  justification  of  which  he  speaks 
in  the  general  conclusion  of  the  argument,  must,  therefore,  be  taken  in 
the  same  sense.  He  speaks  not  of  the  act  of  being  justified  before  God, 
and  the  means  by  which  it  is  effected ;  but  of  being  proved  to  be  in  a 
manifest  and  Scripturally  approved  state  of  justification.  "  Ye  see,  then, 
that  by  works  a  man  is"  shown  to  be  in  a  "justified"  state  ;  or  how  his 
profession  of  being  in  the  Divine  favour  is  justified  and  confirmed  "  by 
works,  and  not  by  faith  only,"  or  mere  doctrinal  faith ;  not  by  the  faith 
of  mere  intellectual  assent,  not  by  the  faith  which  is  dead,  and  unpro- 
ductive of  good  works. 

Lastly,  so  far  are  the  two  apostles  from  being  in  opposition  to  each 
other,  that,  as  to  faith  as  well  as  works,  they  most  perfectly  agree.  St. 
James  declares,  that  no  man  can  be  saved  by  mere  faith.  But,  then,  by 
faith  he  means,  not  the  same  faith  to  which  St.  Paul  attributes  a  saving 
efficacy.  His  argument  sufficiently  shows  this.  He  speaks  of  a  faith 
which  is  "  alone"  and  "  dead,"  St.  Paul  of  the  faith  which  is  never  alone, 
though  it  alone  justifieth  ;  which  is  not  solitaria,  though  it  is  sola  in  this 
work,  as  our  old  divines  speak  ;  the  faith  of  a  penitent,  humbled  man, 
who  not  only  yields  speculative  assent  to  the  scheme  of  Gospel  doc- 
trine, but  flies  with  confidence  to  Christ,  as  his  sacrifice  and  Redeemer, 
for  pardon  of  sin  and  deliverance  from  it ;  the  faith,  in  a  word,  which 
is  a  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  by  which  a  true  believer  enters  into 
and  fives  the  spiritual  life,  because  it  vitally  unites  him  to  Christ,  the 
fountain  of  that  life — "  the  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the 
faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me." 

There  is  then  no  foundation  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  for  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  works,  according  to  Bishop  Bull's  theory.  The  other 
arguments  by  which  this  notion  has  been  supported,  are  refuted  by  the 
principles  which  have  been  already  laid  down,  and  confirmed  from  the 
word  of  God. 

A  third  theory  has,  also,  had  great  influence  in  the  Church  of  Eng. 
land,  and  is  to  this  day  explicitly  asserted  by  some  of  its  leading  divines 
and  prelates.  It  acknowledges  that,  provided  faith  be  understood  to  be 
sincere  and  genuine,  men  are  justified  by  faith  only,  and  in  this  they 
reject  the  opinion  just  examined  ;  but  then  they  take  faith  to  be  mere 
belief,  assent  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  nothing  more.  This  is 
largely  defended  by  Whitby  in  his  preface  to  the  Galatians,  which,  in 
other  respects  ably  shows  that  justification  is  in  no  sense  by  works, 
either  natural,  Mosaic,  or  evangelical.  The  faith  by  which  we  are  jus- 
tified,  he  describes  to  be  "  a  full  assent  to,  or  firm  persuasion  of  mind 
concerning  the  truth  of  what  is  testified  by  God  himself  respecting  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  in  particular,  "  that  he  was  Christ  the  Son  of 

2 


260  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

God."  "  This  was  the  faith  which  the  apostles  required  in  order  to  bap- 
tism ;"  "  by  this  faith  men  were  put  into  the  way  of  salvation,  and  if 
they  persevered  in  it,  would  obtain  it." 

Nearly  the  same  view  is  taught  by  the  present  bishop  of  Winchester, 
in  his  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  and  his  Elements  of  Theology,  and  it  is, 
probably,  the  opinion  of  the  great  body  of  the  national  clergy,  not  dis- 
tinguished as  evangelical,  though  with  many  it  is  also  much  mingled  with 
the  scheme  of  Bishop  Bull.  "  Faith  and  belief,"  says  Bishop  Tomline, 
"  strictly  speaking  mean  the  same  thing."  If,  then,  a  penitent  heathen 
or  Jew,  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  the  promised  Saviour  of 
the  world,  "  having  understood  that  baptism  was  essential  to  the  blessings 
of  the  new  and  merciful  dispensation,  of  the  Divine  authority  of  which  he 
was  fully  persuaded,  would  eagerly  apply  to  some  one  of  those  who 
were  commissioned  to  baptize ;  his  baptism,  administered  according  to 
the  appointed  form  to  a  true  believer,  would  convey  justification  ;  or  in 
other  words,  the  baptized  person  would  receive  remission  of  his  past 
sins,  would  be  reconciled  to  God,  and  be  accounted  just  and  righteous 
in  his  sight."  {Refutation  of  Calvinism,  chap,  iii.)  "  Faith,  therefore,  in- 
cluding repentance  for  former  offences,  was,  as  far  as  the  person  him- 
self was  concerned,  the  sole  requisite  for  justification  ;  no  previous  work 
was  enjoined ;  but  baptism  was  invariably  the  instrument,  or  external  form 
by  which  justification  was  conveyed."  (Refutation  of  Calvinism,  chap,  iii.) 

The  c-onfusedness  and  contrariety  of  this  scheme  will  be  obvious  to 
the  reader. 

It  will  not  be  denied  to  Dr.  Whitby,  that  the  apostles  baptized  upon 
the  profession  of  a  belief  in  the  Messiahship  and  Sonship  of  our  Lord ; 
nor  is  it  denied  to  Bishop  Tomline,  that  when  baptism,  in  the  case  of 
true  penitents,  was  not  only  an  outward  expression  of  the  faith  of  assent ; 
but  accompanied  by  a  solemn  committal  of  the  spiritual  interests  of  the 
baptized  to  Christ,  by  an  act  of  confidence,  the  power  to  do  which,  was, 
no  doubt,  often  given  as  a  part  of  the  grace  of  baptism,  justification 
would  follow ;  the  real  question  is,  whether  justification  follows  mere 
assent.  This  is  wholly  contradicted  by  the  argument  of  St.  James ; 
for  if  dead  faith,  by  which  he  means  mere  assent  to  doctrine,  is  no 
evidence  of  a  justified  state,  it  cannot  be  justifying  ;  which  I  take  to  be 
as  conclusive  an  argument  as  possible.  For  St.  James  does  not  deny 
faith  to  him  who  has  faith  without  works ;  if  then  he  has  faith,  the  apostle 
can  mean  by  faith  nothing  else  certainly  than  assent  or  belief:  "  Thou 
believest  there  is  one  God,  thou  doest  well ;"  and  as  this  faith,  according 
to  him  is  "  alone,"  by  faith  he  means  mere  assent  of  the  intellect.  This 
argument  shows,  that  those  theologians  are  unquestionably  in  error,  who 
make  j.ustification  the  result  of  mere  assent  to  the  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  the  Gospel,  or  doctrinal  belief.  And  neither  Dr.  Whitby  nor  Bishop 
Tomline  are  able  to  carry  this  doctrine  throughout.  The  former  con- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  261 

tends,  that  this  assent,  when  firm  and  sincere,  must  produce  obedience ; 
but  St.  James  denies  neither  firmness  of  conviction,  nor  sincerity  to  his 
inoperative  faith,  and  yet,  he  tells  us,  that  it  remained  "  alone,"  and 
was  "dead."  Beside,  if  faith  justifies  only  as  it  produces  obedience,  it 
does  not  justify  alone,  and  the  justifying  efficacy  lies  in  the  virtual  or 
actual  obedience  proceeding  from  it,  which  gives  up  Whitby's  main  posi- 
tion, and  goes  into  the  scheme  of  Bishop  Bull.  Equally  inconsistent 
is  Bishop  Tomline.  He  acknowledges  that  "  belief,  or  faith,  may  exist, 
unaccompanied  by  any  of  the  Christian  graces ;"  and  that "  this  faith 
does  not  justify."  How  then  will  he  maintain  that  justification  is  by  faith 
alone,  in  the  sense  of  belief?  Again  he  tells  us,  that  the  faith  which  is 
the  means  of  salvation,  "  is  that  belief  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  which 
produces  obedience  to  its  precepts,  and  is  accompanied  by  a  firm  reliance 
upon  the  merits  of  Christ."  Still  farther,  that  "  baptism  is  the  instru- 
ment invariably  by  which  justification  is  conveyed."  {Refutation  of  CaU 
vinism,  chap,  iii.)  Thus,  then,  we  are  first  told,  th^.t  justifying  faith  is 
behef  or  assent ;  then  that  various  other  things  are  connected  with  it  to 
render  it  justifying,  such  as  previous  repentance,  the  power  of  producing 
obedience,  reliance  on  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  baptism  !  All  this  con- 
fusion and  contradiction  shows,  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  in  the  sense  of  belief  or  intellectual  assent  only,  cannot  be  main- 
tained, and  that,  in  order  to  avoid  the  worse  than  Antinomian  consequence, 
which  would  follow  from  the  doctrine,  its  advocates  are  obliged  so  to  ex- 
plain, and  qualify,  and  add,  as  to  make  many  approaches  to  that  true  doc- 
trine against  which  they  hurl  both  censure  and  ridicule. 

The  error  of  this  whole  scheme  lies  in  not  considering  the  essence  of 
justifying  faith  to  be  trust  or  confidence  in  Christ  as  our  sacrifice  for 
sin,  which,  though  Whitby  and  others  of  his  school,  have  attempted  to 
ridicule  by  calling  it  "  a  leaning  or  rolling  of  ourselves  upon  him  for  sal- 
vation," availing  themselves  of  the  coarse  terms  used  by  scoffers,  is  yet 
most  manifestly,  as  we  have  indeed  already  seen,  the  only  sense  in  which 
faith  can  be  rationally  taken,  when  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  a  means  of  recon- 
ciliation with  God,  is  its  object,  and  indeed  when  any  promise  of  God  is 
made  to  us.  It  is  not  surely  that  we  may  merely  believe  that  the  death 
of  Christ  is  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  that  he  is  "  set  forth  as  a  propitiation," 
but  that  we  may  trust  in  its  efficacy  ;  it  is  not  that  we  may  merely  believe 
that  God  has  made  promises  to  us,  that  his  merciful  engagements  in  our 
favour  are  recorded  ;  but  that  we  may  have  confidence  in  them,  and  thus 
be  supported  by  them.  This  was  the  faith  of  the  saints  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. "  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  called  to  go  out  into  a  place 
which  he  should  after  receive  for  an  inheritance,  obeyed,  and  he  went 
out,  not  knowing  whither  he  went."  His  faith  was  confidence.  "  Though 
he  slay  me,  yet  will  I  trust  m  him."  ^'  Who  is  among  you  that  feareth 
the  Lord  ?  let  him  trii^t  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  stay  upon  his  God." 

2 


262  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  Blessed  is  the  man  that  trusteth  in  the  Lord,  and  whose  hope  the  Lord 
is."  It  is  under  this  notion  of  trust  that  faith  is  continually  represented 
to  us  also  in  the  New  Testament.  '^  In  his  name  shall  the  Gentiles  trust." 
"  For  therefore  we  both  labour  and  suffer  reproach,  because  we  trust  in 
the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  and  especially  of  them 
that  believe."  "  For  I  know  whom  I  have  believed,  (trusted,)  and  am 
persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  which  /  have  committed  unto  him 
against  that  day."  "  If  we  hold  the  beginning  of  our  confidence  stead- 
fast to  the  end." 

The  fourth  theory  which  we  may  notice,  is  that  which  rejects  justifi- 
cation in  the  present  life,  and  defers  its  administration  to  the  last  day. 
This  has  had  a  few,  and  but  a  few  abettors,  and  the  principal  arguments 
for  it  are,  1.  That  all  the  consequences  of  sin  are  not  removed  from 
even  believers  in  the  present  life,  whereas  a  full  remission  of  sin  neces- 
sarily impUes  the  full  and  immediate  remission  of  punishment.  2.  That 
if  believers  are  justified,  that  is  judged  in  the  present  life,  they  must  be 
judged  twice,  whereas  there  is  but  one  judgment,  which  is  to  take  place 
at  Christ's  second  coming.  3.  That  the  Scriptures  speak,  of  justifica- 
tion at  the  last  day,  as  when  our  Lord  declares  "  that  every  idle  word 
that  men  shall  speak  they  shall  give  an  account  thereof  in  the  day  of 
judgment,"  and  adds,  "  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  (then)  be  justified,  and 
by  thy  words  shalt  thou  be  condemned." 

To  all  these  arguments,  which  a  few  words  will  refute,  the  general,  and, 
indeed,  sufficient  answer  is,  that  justification  in  the  sense  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  the  only  import  of  the  term  in  question,  is  constantly  and 
explicitly  spoken  of  as  a  present  attainment.  This  is  declared  to  be  the 
case  with  Abraham  and  with  David,  by  St.  Paul ;  it  was  surely  the  case 
with  those  to  whom  our  Lord  said,  "  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee ;"  and 
with  her  of  whom  he  declared,  that  having  "  much  forgiven  she  loved 
much."  "  We  have,"  says  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Colossians,  «  re- 
demption through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  So  plain  a  point 
needs  no  confirmation  by  more  numerous  quotations ;  and  the  only  means 
which  the  advocates  of  the  theory  have  resorted  to  for  explaining  such 
passages  consistently  with  their  own  views,  is  absurdly,  and  we  may  add 
audaciously,  to  resolve  them  into  a  figure  of  speech  which  speaks  of  a 
future  thing  when  certain,  as  present ;  a  mode  of  interpretation  which 
sets  all  criticism  at  defiance. 

As  to  the  first  argument,  we  may  observe  that  it  assumes,  that  it  is 
essential  to  the  pardon  of  sin,  that  all  its  consequences  should  be  imme- 
diately removed,  or  otherwise  they  assert  it  is  no  pardon  at  all.  This  is 
to  affirm,  that  to  be  freed  from  punishment  in  another  life,  and  finally, 
and  indeed  in  a  short  time,  to  be  freed  from  the  afflictions  of  this  is  not 
a  pardon ;  which  no  one  can  surely  deliberately  affirm.  This  notion, 
also,  loses  sight  entirely  of  the  obviously  wise  ends  which  are  answered 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  263 

by  postponing  the  removal  of  affliction  and  diseases  from  those  who  are 
admitted  into  the  Divine  favour,  till  another  life ;  and  of  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  all  these  to  their  benefit,  so  that  they  entirely  lose,  when  they  are 
not  the  consequence  of  new  offences,  their  penal  character,  and  become 
parts  of  a  merciful  discipline,  "  working  together  for  good." 

The  second  argument  assumes,  that  because  there  is  but  one  general 
judgment,  there  can  be  no  acts  of  judgment  which  are  private  and  per- 
sonal.  But  the  one  is  in  no  sense  contrary  to  the  other.  Justification 
may,  therefore,  be  allowed  to  be  a  judicial  proceeding  under  a  merciful 
constitution,  as  before  explained,  and  yet  offer  no  obstruction  to  a  gene- 
ral, pubUc,  and  final  judgment.  The  latter  indeed  grows  out  of  the 
former ;  for  since  this  offer  of  mercy  is  made  to  all  men  by  the  Gospel, 
they  are  accountable  for  the  acceptance  or  refusal  of  it,  which  it  is  a 
part  of  the  general  judgment  to  exhibit,  that  the  righteousness  of  God, 
in  the  punishment  of  them  "  that  believe  not  the  Gospel,"  may  be  de- 
monstrated and  the  ground  of  the  salvation  of  those  who  have  been  sin- 
ners,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  mankind,  may  be  declared.  We  may  also 
farther  observe,  that  so  far  is  the  appointment  of  one  general  judgment 
from  interfering  with  acts  of  judgment  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Most 
High  as  the  governor  of  men,  that  he  is  constantly  judging  men,  both 
as  individuals  and  nations,  and  distributing  to  them  both  rewards  and 
punishments. 

The  argument  from  the  justification  of  men  at  the  last  day,  proceeds, 
also,  upon  a  false  assumption.  It  takes  justification  then  and  now  for 
the  same  act ;  and  it  supposes  it  to  proceed  upon  the  same  principle ; 
neither  of  which  is  true. 

1.  It  is  not  true  that  it  is  the  same  act.  The  justification  of  believers 
in  this  life,  is  the  remission  of  sins ;  but  where  are  we  taught  that 
remission  of  sins  is  to  be  attained  in  the  day  of  judgment  1  Plainly 
nowhere,  and  the  whole  doctrine  of  Scripture  is  in  opposition  to  this 
notion,  for  it  confines  our  preparation  for  judgment  to  the  present  hfe 
only.  When  our  Lord  says,  "  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified,"  he 
does  not  mean  "  by  thy  words  thy  sins  shall  be  forgiven  ;"  and  if  this  is 
not  maintained  the  passage  is  of  no  force  in  the  argument. 

2.  Justification  at  the  last  day,  does  not  proceed  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple, and,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  concluded  to  be  the  continuance  of  the 
same  act,  commenced  on  earth.  Justification  at  the  last  day  is,  on  all 
hands,  allowed  to  be  by  works  ;  but,  if  that  justification  mean  the  pardon 
of  sin,  then  the  pardon  of  sin  is  by  works  and  not  by  faith,  a  doctrine 
we  have  already  refuted  from  the  clear  evidence  of  Scripture  itself.  The 
justification  of  the  last  day  is,  therefore,  not  the  pardon  of  sin  ;  for  if 
our  sins  are  previously  pardoned,  we  then  need  no  pardon ;  if  they  are 
not  pardoned,  no  provision  for  their  remission  then  remains.  And  as 
this  justification  is  not  'pardon,  neither  is  it  acquittal ;  for,  as  to  those 

2 


264  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

sins  of  which  the  wicked  have  not  been  guilty,  they  will  not  be  acquit- 
ted  of  them,  because  an  all-wise  God  will  not  charge  them  with  those  of 
which  they  have  not  been  guilty,  and  there  can  be  no  acquittal  as  to 
those  they  have  committed.  Believers  will  not  be  acquitted  of  the  sins 
for  which  they  have  obtained  forgiveness,  because  they  will  not  be 
charged  upon  them  :  "  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's 
elect  ?  It  is  God  that  justifieth."  So  far  from  their  being  arraigned  as 
sinners,  that  their  justification  on  earth  may  be  formally  pleaded  for  their 
acquittal  at  the  last  day,  that  the  very  circumstances  of  the  judgment 
will  be  a  public  recognition,  from  its  very  commencement,  of  their  par- 
don and  acceptance  upon  earth.  <'  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first." 
"  They  rise  to  glory,  not  to  shame,"  their  bodies  being  made  like  unto 
Christ's  "  glorious  body."  Those  that  sleep  in  Christ  shall  "  God  bring 
with  him,"  in  his  train  of  triumph  ;  they  shall  be  set  on  his  "  right  hand," 
in  token  of  acceptance  and  favour ;  and  of  the  books  which  shall  be 
opened,  one  is  "  the  book  of  life,"  in  which  their  names  have  been  pre- 
viously  recorded.  It  follows,  then,  that  our  justification  at  the  last  day, 
if  we  must  still  use  that  phrase,  which  has  little  to  support  it  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  might  be  well  substituted  for  others  less  equivocal,  can  only  be 
declarative,  approbatory,  and  remunerative.  Declarative,  as  recognizing, 
in  the  manner  just  stated,  the  justification  of  believers  on  earth  ;  appro- 
batory of  their  works  of  faith  and  love  ;  and  remunerative  of  them,  as 
made  graciously  rewardable,  in  their  different  measures,  by  the  evange- 
lical constitution. 

And  here  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  notice  an  argument  against  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith  alone,  and  in  favour  of  justification  by  faith 
and  works,  which  is  drawn  from  the  proceedings  of  the  last  day  : — "  If 
works  wrought  through  faith  are  the  ground  of  the  sentence  passed  upon 
us  in  that  day,  then  they  are  a  necessary  condition  of  our  justification." 
This  is  an  argument  which  has  been  built  much  upon,  from  Bishop  Bull 
to  the  present  day.  Its  fallacy  lies  in  considering  the  works  of  believers 
as  the  only,  or  chief  ground  of  that  sentence ;  that  is,  the  administra- 
tion of  eternal  life  to  them  in  its  difl^erent  degrees  of  glory  at  the  coming 
of  Christ.  That  it  is  not  so,  is  plain  from  those  express  passages  of 
Scripture,  which  represent  eternal  life  as  the  fruit  of  Christ's  atonement, 
and  the  gift  of  God  through  him.  "  By  grace  are  ye  saved,  through 
faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God,  not  of  works,"  dec. 
"  Why,"  says  an  old  writer,  "  might  he  not  have  said,  by  grace  are  ye 
saved,  through  faith  and  works ;  it  were  as  easy  to  say  the  one  as  the 
other."  (9)     If  our  works  are  the  sole  ground  of  that  sentence  of  eter- 

(9)  The  reader  will  also  recollect  Rom.  vi,  23,  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death; 
but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."     The  follow- 
ing passages  expressly  make  the  atonement  of  Christ  the  ground  of  our  title  to 
eternal  life.     «•  By  his  own  blood  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  2G5 

nal  life,  then  is  the  reward  of  righteousness  of  debt  according  to  the  law 
of  works,  and  not  of  grace  ;  but  if  of  grace,  then  works  are  not  the  sole 
or  chief  ground  of  our  tinal  reward.  If  of  debt,  we  claim  in  our  own 
right ;  and  the  works  rewarded  must  be  in  every  sense  our  own  ;  but 
good  works  are  not  our  own  works ;  we  are  "  created  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works ;"  and  derive  all  the  power  to  do  them  from  him.  If, 
then,  we  have  not  the  right  of  reward  in  ourselves,  we  have  it  in  ano- 
ther ;  and  thus  we  again  come  to  another  and  higher  ground  of  the  final 
sentence  than  the  works  wrought  even  by  them  that  believe,  namely, 
the  covenant  right  which  we  derive  from  Christ — right  grounded  on 
promise.  If  then  it  is  asked,  in  what  sense  good  works  are  any  ground 
at  all  of  the  final  sentence  of  eternal  life,  we  answer,  they  are  so  seconda- 
rily and  subordinately,  1.  As  evidences  of  that  faith  and  that  justified 
state  from  which  alone  truly  good  works  can  spring.  2.  As  qualifying 
us  for  heaven ;  they  and  the  principles  from  which  they  spring  consti- 
tuting our  holiness,  our  "  meetness  for  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in 
light."  3.  As  rewardable ;  but  still  of  grace  not  of  debt,  of  promise  not 
of  our  own  right,  since  after  all  we  have  done,  though  we  had  lived  and 
suffered  as  the  apostles  to  whom  the  words  were  first  addressed,  we  are 
commanded  to  confess  ourselves  "  unprofitable  servants."  In  this  sense 
good  works,  though  they  have  no  part  in  the  office  of  justifying  the  un- 
godly,  that  is,  in  obtaining  forgiveness  of  sin,  are  necessary  to  salvation, 
though  they  are  not  the  ground  of  it.  As  they  are  pleasing  to  God,  so 
are  they  approved  and  rewarded  by  God.  "  They  prevent  future  guilt, 
but  take  away  no  former  guilt,  evidence  our  faith  and  title  to  everlEist- 
ing  glory,  strengthen  our  union  with  Christ  because  they  strengthen 
faith,  confirm  our  hope,  glorify  God,  give  good  example  to  men,  make  us 
more  capable  of  communion  with  God,  give  some  content  to  our  con- 
sciences, and  there  is  happiness  in  the  doing  of  them,  and  in  the  remem- 
brance of  them  when  done.  Blessed  are  they  who  always  abound  in 
them,  for  they  know  that  their  labour  is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord.  Yet 
Bellarmin,  though  a  great  advancer  of  merit,  thought  it  the  safest  way 
to  put  our  sole  trust  not  in  these  good  works,  but  in  Christ.  It  is,  indeed, 
not  only  the  safest,  but  the  only  way  so  to  do,  if  we  would  be  justified 
before  God.  True,  we  shall  be  judged  according  to  our  works,  but  it 
doth  not  follow  that  we  shall  be  justified  by  our  works.  God  did  never 
ordain  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits  of  a  sincere  faith  in  Christ,  to 
acquire  a  right  unto  the  remission  of  sin  and  eternal  fife ;  but  to  be  a 
means  by  which  we  may  obtain  possession  of  the  rewards  he  hath  pro- 
mised." (Lawsori's  Theo-PolUica.) 

obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us."  "  He  is  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that,  by  means  of  death,  they  which  are  called  might  receive  the  promise 
of  eternal  inheritance,"  Heb.  ix,  12-15.  "Christ  died  for  us,  that  whether  we 
wake  or  sleep,  we  should  live  together  with  him,'^  1  Thess.  v,  10. 

2 


266  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  |PART 

The  last  theory  of  justification  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  advert,  is 
that  comprised  in  the  scheme  of  Dr.  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  in  his  Key  to 
the  Apostohc  Writings.  It  is,  that  all  such  phrases  as  to  elect,  call, 
adopt,  justify,  sanctify,  &;c,  are  to  be  taken  to  express  that  Church  rela- 
tion into  which,  by  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  polity,  believing  Jews 
and  Gentiles  were  brought ;  that  they  are  "  antecedent  blessings," 
enjoyed  by  all  professed  Christians,  though,  unless  they  avail  themselves 
of  these  privileges  for  the  purposes  of  personal  holiness,  they  cannot  be 
saved. 

This  scheme  is,  in  many  respects,  delusive  and  absurd,  as  it  con- 
founds collective  privileges  with  those  attainments  which  from  their 
nature  can  only  be  personal.  If  we  allow  that  with  respect  to  "  elec- 
tion," for  instance,  it  may  have  a  plausibility,  because  nations  of  men 
may  be  elected  to  peculiar  privileges  of  a  religious  kind ;  yet  with 
respect  to  the  others,  as  "justification,"  &;c,  the  notion  requires  no 
lengthened  refutation.  Justification  is,  as  the  Apostle  Paul  states  it, 
pardon  of  sin ;  but  are  the  sins  of  nations  pardoned,  because  they  are 
professedly  Christian  ?  This  is  a  personal  attainment,  and  can  be  no 
other,  and  collective  justification,  by  Church  privileges,  is  a  wild  dream, 
which  mocks  and  trifles  with  the  Scriptures.  According  to  this  scheme, 
there  is  a  Scriptural  sense  in  which  the  most  profane  and  immoral  man, 
provided  he  profess  himself  a  Christian,  may  be  said  to  be  justified, 
that  is,  pardoned ;  sanctified,  that  is,  made  holy ;  and  adopted,  thiat  is, 
made  a  child  of  God ! 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Benefits  derived  to  Man  from  the  Atonement — CoNcoMiTANTg 
OF  Justification. 

The  leading  blessings  concomitant  with  justification,  are  regenera- 
tion and  ADOPTION ;  with  respect  to  which  we  may  observe  generally, 
that  although  we  must  distinguish  them  as  being  different  from  each 
other,  and  from  justification,  yet  they  are  not  to  be  separated.  They 
occur  at  the  same  time,  and  they  all  enter  into  the  experience  of  the 
same  person  ;  so  that  no  man  is  justified  without  being  regenerated  and 
adopted,  and  no  man  is  regenerated  and  made  a  son  of  God,  who  is  not 
justified.  Whenever  they  are  mentioned  in  Scripture,  they,  therefore, 
involve  and  imply  each  other  ;  a  remark  which  may  preserve  us  from 
some  errors.  Thus,  with  respect  to  our  heirship,  and  consequent  title 
to  eternal  life,  in  Titus  iii,  7,  it  is  grounded  upon  our  justification.  "  For 
we  are  justified  by  his  grace,  that  we  should  be  heirs  according  to  the 
hope  of  eternal  life."  In  1  Pet.  i,  3,  it  is  connected  with  our  regenera- 
tion, «  Blessed  be  God  and  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  267 

of  his  abundant  mercy  hath  begotten  us  again  unto  a  lively  hope,  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  unto  an  inheritance,"  &c. 
Again,  in  Rom.  viii,  17,  it  is  grounded  upon  our  adoption — "  If  chil- 
dren, then  heirs."  These  passages  are  a  sufficient  proof,  that  justifica- 
tion, regeneration,  and  adoption,  are  not  distinct  and  different  titles,  but 
constitute  one  and  the  same  title,  through  the  gift  of  God  in  Christ,  to 
the  heavenly  inheritance.  They  are  attained,  too,  by  the  same  faith. 
We  are  "justified  by  faith  ;"  and  we  are  the  "  children  of  God  by  faith 
in  Christ  Jesus."  Accordingly,  in  the  following  passages,  they  are  all 
united  as  the  effect  of  the  same  act  of  faith.  "  But  as  many  as  received 
him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  (which  appella- 
tion includes  reconciliation  and  adoption,)  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
his  name,  which  were  horn  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  hut  of  God,^^  or,  in  other  words,  were  regene- 
rated. 

The  observations  which  have  been  made  on  the  subject,  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  will  render  it  the  less  necessary  to  dwell  here  at  length 
upon  the  nature  and  extent  of  regeneration. 

It  is  that  mighty  change  in  man,  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
which  the  dominion  which  sin  has  over  him  in  his  natural  state,  and 
which  he  deplores  and  struggles  against  in  his  penitent  state,  is  broken 
and  abolished,  so  that,  with  full  choice  of  will  and  the  energy  of  right 
aflfections,  he  serves  God  freely,  and  "  runs  in  the  way  of  his  command- 
ments." "  Whosoever  is  bom  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin,  for  his  seed 
remaineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God."  "  For 
sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you  ;  for  ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but 
under  grace."  "  But  now  being  made  free  from  sin,  and  become  ser- 
vants to  God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness,  and  the  end  everlasting 
life."  Deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  sin,  and  the  power  and  the 
will  to  do  all  things  which  are  pleasing  to  God,  both  as  to  inward  habits 
and  outward  acts,  are,  therefore,  the  distinctive  characters  of  this  state. 

That  repentance  is  not  regeneration,  we  have  before  observed.  It 
will  not  bear  disputing  whether  regeneration  begins  with  repentance ; 
for  if  the  regenerate  state  is  only  entered  upon  at  our  justification,  then 
all  that  can  be  meant  by  this,  to  be  consistent  with  the  Scriptures,  is, 
that  the  preparatory  process,  which  leads  to  regeneration,  as  it  leads  to 
pardon,  commences  with  conviction  and  contrition,  and  goes  on  to  a 
repentant  turning  to  the  Lord.  In  the  order  which  God  has  established, 
regeneration  does  not  take  place  without  this  process.  Conviction  of 
the  evil  and  danger  of  an  unregenerate  state  must  first  be  felt.  God 
hath  appointed  this  change  to  be  effected  in  answer  to  our  prayers ; 
and  acceptable  prayer  supposes  that  we  desire  the  blessing  we  ask ; 
that  we  accept  of  Christ  as  the  appointed  medium  of  access  to  God ; 
that  we  feel  and  confess  our  own  inability  to  attain  what  we  ask  from 


268  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

another ;  and  that  we  exercise  faith  in  the  promises  of  God  which  con- 
vey the  good  we  seek.  It  is  clear  that  none  of  these  is  regeneration, 
for  they  all  suppose  it  to  be  a  good  in  prospect,  the  object  of  prayer  and 
eager  desire.  True  it  is,  that  deep  and  serious  conviction  for  sin,  the 
power  to  desire  deliverance  from  it,  the  power  to  pray,  the  struggle 
against  the  corruptions  of  an  unregenerate  heart,  are  all  proofs  of  a 
work  of  God  in  the  heart,  and  of  an  important  moral  change ;  but  it  is 
not  this  change,  because  regeneration  is  that  renewal  of  our  nature 
which  gives  us  dominion  over  sin,  and  enables  us  to  serve  God,  from 
love,  and  not  merely  from  fear,  and  it  is  yet  confessedly  unattained, 
being  still  the  object  of  search  and  eager  desire.  We  are  not  yet 
"  created  anew  unto  good  works,"  which  is  as  special  and  instant  a  work 
of  God  as  justification,  and  for  this  reason,  that  it  is  not  attained  before 
the  pardon  of  our  sins,  and  always  accompanies  it. 
This  last  point  may  be  proved, 

1.  From  the  nature  of  justification  itself,  which  takes  away  the 
penalty  of  sin ;  but  that  penalty  is  not  only  obligation  to  punishment, 
but  the  loss  of  the  sanctifying  Spirit,  and  the  curse  of  being  left  under 
the  slavery  of  sin,  and  under  the  dominion  of  Satan.  Regeneration  is 
effected  by  this  Spirit  restored  to  us,  and  is  a  consequence  of  our  par- 
don ;  for  though  justification  in  itself  is  the  remission  of  sin,  yet  a 
justified  state  imphes  a  change,  both  in  our  condition  and  in  our  dis- 
position :  in  our  condition^  as  we  are  in  a  state  of  life,  not  of  death,  of 
safety,  not  of  condemnation ;  in  our  disposition,  as  regenerate  and  new 
creatures. 

2.  From  Scripture,  which  affords  us  direct  proof  that  regeneration  is 
a  concomitant  of  justification,  "  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new 
creature."  It  is  then  the  result  of  our  entrance  into  that  state  in  which 
we  are  said  to  be  in  Christ  ;  and  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  is  most 
satisfactorily  explained  by  Rom.  viii,  1,  considered  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  chapter,  from  which,  in  the  division  of  the  chapters,  it 
ought  not  to  have  been  separated.  That  chapter  clearly  describes  the 
state  of  a  person  convinced  and  slain  by  the  law  applied  by  the  Spirit. 
We  may  discover  indeed,  in  this  description,  certain  moral  changes,  as 
consenting  to  the  law  that  it  is  good ;  delighting  in  it  after  the  inward 
man  ;  powerful  desires  ;  humble  confession,  &;c.  The  state  represented 
is,  however,  in  fact,  one  of  guilt,  spiritual  captivity,  helplessness,  and 
misery  ;  a  state  of  condemnation ;  and  a  state  of  bondage  to  sin.  The 
opposite  condition  is  that  of  a  man  "  in  Christ  Jesus  :"  to  him  "  there 
is  no  condemnation ;"  he  is  forgiven  ;  the  bondage  to  sin  is  broJcen ;  he 
"  walks  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit."  To  be  in  Christ,  is, 
therefore,  to  be  justified,  and  regeneration  instantly  follows.  We  see 
then  the  order  of  the  Divine  operation  in  individual  experience  :  convic- 
tion of  sin,  helplessness  and  danger ;  faith  ;  justification ;  and  regene- 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  269 

ration.  The  regenerate  state  is,  also,  called  in  Scripture  sanctification ; 
though  a  distinction  is  made  by  the  Apostle  Paul  between  that  and 
being  "  sanctified  wholly,'''  a  doctrine  to  be  afterward  considered.  In 
this  regenerate,  or  sanctified  state,  the  former  corruptions  of  the  heart 
may  remain,  and  strive  for  the  mastery ;  but  that  which  characterizes 
and  distinguishes  it  from  the  state  of  a  penitent  before  justification, 
before  he  is  "  in  Christ,"  is,  that  they  are  not  even  hiS  inward  habit ; 
and  that  they  have  no  dominion.  Faith  unites  to  Christ;  by  it  we 
derive  "  grace  and  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ,"  and  enjoy  "  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and  this 
Spirit,  as  the  sanctifying  Spirit,  is  given  to  us  to  "  abide  with  us,  and  to 
be  in  us,"  and  then  we  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  Spirit. 

Adoption  is  the  second  concomitant  of  justification,  and  is  a  large 
and  comprehensive  blessing. 

To  suppose  that  the  apostles  take  this  term  from  the  practice  of  the 
Greeks,  Romans,  and  other  nations  who  had  the  custom  of  adopting  the 
children  of  others,  and  investing  them  with  all  the  privileges  of  their 
natural  offspring,  is,  probably,  a  refinement.  It  is  much  more  likely 
that  they  had  simply  in  view  the  obvious  fact,  that  our  sins  had  deprived 
us  of  our  sonship,  the  favour  of  God,  and  our  right  to  the  inheritance  of 
eternal  life ;  that  we  had  become  strangers,  and  aliens,  and  enemies ; 
and  that,  upon  our  return  to  God,  and  reconciliation  with  him,  our  for- 
feited privileges  were  not  only  restored,  but  heightened  through  the 
paternal  love  of  God^  They  could  scarcely  be  forgetful  of  the  affect- 
ing parable  of  the  prodigal  son ;  and  it  is  under  the  same  simple  view 
that  St.  Paul  quotes  from  the  Old  Testament,  "wherefore  come  out 
from  among  them,  and  be  ye  separate,  saith  the  Lord,  and  touch  not  the 
unclean  thing,  and  I  will  receive  you,  and  I  will  be  a  Father  unto  you, 
and  ye  shall  be  my  sons  and  daughters,  saith  the  Lord  almighty." 

Adoption,  then,  is  that  act  by  which  we  who  were  alienated,  and  ene- 
mies, and  disinherited,  are  made  the  sons  of  God,  and  heirs  of  his  eternal 
glory.  "  If  children  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ ;" 
where  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  it  is  not  in  our  o^vn  right,  nor  in  right 
of  any  work  done  in  us,  or  which  we  ourselves  do,  though  it  be  an 
evangeUcal  work,  that  we  become  heirs,  but  jointly  with  him,  and  in 
his  right. 

To  this  state  belong  freedom  from  a  servile  spirit ;  we  are  not  servants 
but  sofis ;  the  special  love  and  care  of  God  our  heavenly  Father ;  a 
filial  confidence  in  him ;  free  access  to  him  at  all  times  and  in  all  cir- 
cumstances ;  the  title  to  the  heavenly  inheritance  ;  and  the  Spirit  of 
adoption,  or  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  our  adoption,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  all  the  comfort  we  can  derive  from  those  privileges,  as  it 
is  the  only  means  by  which  we  can  know  that  they  are  ours. 

The  point  stated  last  requires  to  be  explained  more  largely,  and  the 

2 


270  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

more  so  as  it  has  often  been  derided  as  enthusiastic,  and  often  timidly 
explained  away  by  those  whose  opinions  are  in  the  main  correct. 

The  doctrine  is,  the  inward  witness  or  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
to  the  adoption  or  sonship  of  believers,  from  which  flows  a  comfortable 
persuasion  or  conviction  of  our  present  acceptance  with  God,  and  the 
hope  of  our  future  and  eternal  glory. 

This  is  taught  in  several  passages  of  Scripture. 

Rom.  viii,  15,  16,  "For  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage 
again  to  fear,  but  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father. 
The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children 
of  God."  In  this  passage  it  is  to  be  remarked,  1.  That  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  spoken  of,  takes  away  ^'•fear^''  being  opposed  to  the  personified 
spirit  of  the  law,  or  rather,  perhaps,  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  convincing 
agency,  called  the  spirit  of  bondage,  producing  "  fear,"  a  servile  dread 
of  God  as  ofl^ended.  2.  That  the  "  Spirit  of  God"  here  mentioned,  is 
not  the  personified  spirit  or  genius  of  the  Gospel,  as  some  would  have  it, 
but  "  tlie  Spirit  itself, ^^  or  himself,  and  hence  called  in  the  Galatians,  in 
the  text  adduced  below,  "  The  Spirit  of  his  ^ow,"  which  cannot  mean 
the  genius  of  the  Gospel.  3.  That  he  inspires  a  fihal  confidence  in 
God  as  our  Father,  which  is  opposed  to  "  the  fear"  produced  by  the 
"  spirit  of  bondage."  4.  That  he  produces  this  filial  confidence,  and 
enables  us  to  call  God  our  Father,  by  witnessing,  bearing  testimony  with 
our  spirit,  "  that  we  are  the  children  of  God." 

Gal.  iv,  4,  5,  6,  "  But  when  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God 
sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem 
them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of 
sons  ;  and  because  ye  are  sons  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son 
into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father." 

Here,  also,  are  to  be  noted,  1.  The  means  of  our  redemption  from 
under  (the  curse  of)  the  law,  the  incarnation  and  sufferings  of  Christ. 
2.  That  the  adoption  of  sons  follows  upon  our  actual  redemption  from 
that  curse,  or,  in  other  words,  our  pardon.  3.  That  upon  our  pardon, 
the  "  Spirit  of  his  Son"  is  ^^  sent  forth,"  and  that  ^'into  our  hearts,"  pro- 
ducing the  same  effect  as  that  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
filial  confidence  in  God, — "  crying,  Abba,  Father."  To  these  are  to  be 
added  all  those  passages,  so  numerous  in  the  New  Testament,  which  ex- 
press  the  confidence  and  the  joy  of  Christians ;  their  friendship  with 
God ;  their  confident  access  to  him  as  their  God ;  their  entire  union,  and 
delightful  intercourse  with  him  in  spirit. 

This  doctrine  has  been  generally  termed  the  doctrine  of  assurance, 
and,  perhaps  the  expressions  of  St.  Paul, — "  the  full  assurance  of  faith," 
and  "the  full  assurance  of  hope,"  may  warrant  the  use  of  the  word.  But 
as  there  is  a  current  and  generally  understood  sense  of  this  term  among 
persons  of  the  Calvinistic  persuasion,  implying,  that  the  assurance  of 


SECO]^D.]  triEOLOGICAL    INSTITUI'ES.  271 

our  present  acceptance  and  sonship,  is  an  assurance  of  our  final  perse- 
verance, and  of  our  indefeasible  title  to  heaven  :  the  phrase,  a  comfort- 
able persuasion,  or  conviction  of  our  justification  and  adoption,  arising 
out  of  the  Spirit's  inward  and  direct  testimony,  is  to  be  preferred ;  for 
this  has  been  held  as  an  indubitable  doctrine  of  Holy  Writ  by  Christians, 
who  by  no  means  receive  the  doctrine  of  assurance  in  the  sense  held  by 
the  followers  of  Calvin. 

There  is,  also,  another  reason  for  the  sparing  and  cautious  use  of  the 
term  assurance,  which  is,  that  it  seems  to  imply,  though  not  necessarily, 
the  absence  of  all  doubt,  and  shuts  out  all  those  lower  degrees  of  per- 
suasion which  may  exist  in  the  experience  of  Christians.  For,  as  our 
faith,  may  not  at  first,  or  at  all  times,  be  equally  strong,  the  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  may  have  its  degrees  of  strength,  and  our  persuasion  or 
conviction  be  proportionately  regulated.  Yet,  if  faith  be  genuine,  God 
respects  its  weaker  exercises,  and  encourages  its  growth,  by  aflTording 
measures  of  comfort,  and  degrees  of  this  testimony.  Nevertheless,- 
while  this  is  allowed,  the  fulness  of  this  attainment  is  to  be  pressed 
upon  every  one  that  believes,  according  to  the  word  of  God  : — ^"  Let  ua 
draw  near,"  says  St.  Paul  to  all  Christians,  "with  full  assurance  of  faith." 

It  may  serve,  also,  to  remove  an  objection  sometimes  made  to  the 
doctrine,  and  to  correct  an  error  which  sometimes  pervades  the  state- 
ment of  it,  to  observe  that  this  assurance,  persuasion,  or  conviction, 
whichever  term  be  adopted,  is  not  of  the  essence  of  justifying  faith ; 
that  is,  that  justifying  faith  does  not  consist  in  the  assurance  that  I  am 
now  forgiven,  through  Christ.  This  would  be  obviously  contradictory. 
For  we  must  believe  before  we  can  be  justified  ;  much  more  before  we 
Can  be  assured,  in  any  degree,  that  we  are  justified  ;  and  this  persuasion, 
therefore,  follows  justification ;  and  is  one  of  its  results.  We  believe 
in  order  to  justification ;  but  we  cannot  be  persuaded  of  our  forgiveness 
in  order  to  it,  for  the  persuasion  would  be  false.  But  though  we  must 
not  only  distinguish,  but  separate  this  persuasion  of  our  acceptance  from 
the  faith  which  justifies,  we  must  not  separate  but  only  distinguish  it 
from  justification  itself.  W^ith  that  come  as  concomitants,  regeneration, 
adoption,  and  as  far  as  we  have  any  information  from  Scripture,  the 
*'  Spirit  of  adoption,"  though,  as  in  all  other  cases,  in  various  degrees 
of  operation. 

On  the  subject  of  this  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  there  are  four 
opinions. 

The  first  is,  that  it  is  twofold ;  a  direct  testimony  to,  or  "inward  im- 
pression on  the  soul,  whereby  the  Spirit  of  God  witnesses  to  my  spirit 
that  I  am  a  child  of  God ;  that  Christ  hath  loved  me,  and  given  himself 
for  me,  that  I,  even  I,  am  reconciled  to  God  ;"  ( Wesley^s  Sermons ;)  and 
an  indirect  testimony,  arising  from  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart 
and  life,  which  St.  Paul  calls  the  testimony  of  our  own  spiiits ;  for  this 


272  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

is  inferred  from  his  expression,  "  And  the  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness 
with  our  spirit,"  &;c.  This  testimony  of  our  own  spirit,  or  indirect  tes- 
timony of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  and  through  our  own  spirit,  is  considered 
as  confirmatory  of  the  first  testimony,  and  is  thus  explained  by  the  same 
writer :— "  How  am  I  assured  that  I  do  not  mistake  the  voice  of  the 
Spirit  ?  even  by  the  testimony  of  my  own  spirit,  *  by  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience  toward  God :'  hereby  you  shall  know  that  you  are  in 
no  delusion,  that  you  have  not  deceived  your  own  soul.  The  immediate 
fruits  of  the  Spirit  ruling  in  the  heart,  are  love,  joy,  peace ;  bowels  of 
mercies,  humbleness  of  mind,  meekness,  gentleness,  long  suffering.  And 
the  outward  fruits  are,  the  doing  good  to  all  men,  and  a  uniform  obe- 
dience to  all  the  commands  of  God." 

The  second  opinion  acknowledges,  also,  a  twofold  witness ;  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit,  which  consists  in  the  moral  effects  produced  in  him 
that  believes,  otherwise  called  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  and  the  witness 
of  our  own  spirits,  that  is,  the  consciousness  of  possessing  faith.  This 
they  call  "  the  reflex  act  of  faith,  by  which  a  person,  conscious  of  be- 
lieving,  reasons  in  this  manner,  I  know  that  I  believe  in  Christ,  therefore 
I  know  that  I  shall  obtain  everlasting  life."  {Dr,  HilVs  Lectures.) 

The  third  opinion  is,  that  there  is  but  one  witness,  the  Holy  Spirit, 
acting  concurrently  with  our  own  spirits.  "  The  Spirit  of  God  produces 
those  graces  in  us  which  are  the  evidence  of  our  adoption  ;  it  is  he  who, 
as  occasion  requires,  illuminates  our  understandings  and  assists  our 
memories  in  discovering  and  recollecting  those  arguments  of  hope  and 
comfort  within  ourselves.  But  God's  Spirit  doth  witness  with,  not  with- 
out our  spirits  and  understandings  ;  in  making  use  of  our  reason  in  con- 
sidering  and  reflecting  upon  those  grounds  of  comfort,  which  the  Spirit 
of  God  hath  wrought  in  us,  and  from  them  drawing  this  comfortable 
conclusion  to  ourselves,  that  '  we  are  the  sons  of  God.' "  (Bishop  Bull.) 
With  this  notion  is  generally  connected,  that  of  the  entire  impercepti- 
bility  of  the  Spirit's  operations  as  distinguished  from  the  operations  of 
our  own  mind,  "  so  that  we  could  never  have  known,  unless  it  had  been 
communicated  to  us  by  Divine  revelation,  that  our  souls  are  moved  by  a 
Divine  power,  when  we  love  God  and  keep  his  commandments."  (Mant 
and  D^Oyley^s  Commentary.) 

The  following  passage  from  the  Rev.  Thomas  Scott's  Commentary 
agrees  with  Bishop  Bull  in  making  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  mediate 
through  our  own  spirit ;  and  differs  chiefly  in  phraseology.  It  may  be 
taken  as  the  view  of  a  great  part  of  those  called  the  evangelical  clergy 
of  the  present  day.  "  The  Holy  Spirit,  by  producing  in  believers  the 
tempers  and  affections  of  children,  as  described  in  the  Scriptures,  most 
manifestly  attests  their  adoption  into  God's  family.  This  is  not  done  by 
any  voice,  immediate  revelation,  or  impulse,  or  merely  by  any  text 
brought  to  the  mind,  (for  all  these  are  equivocal  and  delusory,)  but  by 


«£CO.\D.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  27S 

coinciding  with  the  testimony  of  their  own  consciences,  as  to  their  up, 
lightness  in  embracing  the  Gospel,  and  giving  themselves  up  to  the 
service  of  God.  So  that,  while  they  are  examining  themselves  as  to 
the  reahty  of  their  conversion,  and  find  Scriptural  evidence  of  it,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  from  time  to  time  shines  upon  his  own  work,  excites  their 
holy  affections  into  lively  exercise,  renders  them  very  efficacious  upon 
their  conduct,  and  thus  puts  the  matter  beyond  doubt ;  for  while  they 
feel  the  spirit  of  dutiful  children  toward  God,  they  become  satisfied  con- 
cerning  his  paternal  love  to  them." 

A  fourth  opinion  allows  the  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit,  as  stated 
above ;  but  considers  it  only  the  special  privilege  of  a  few  favoured 
persons  ;  of  which  notion  it  is  a  sufficient  refutation,  that  the  apostle,  in 
the  texts  before  quoted,  speaks  generally  of  believers,  and  restrains  not 
the  attainment  from  any  who  seek  it.  He  places  it  in  this  respect  on 
the  ground  of  all  other  blessings  of  the  new  covenant. 

Of  the  four  opinions  just  adduced,  the  first  only  appears  to  express 
the  true  sense  of  the  word  of  God ;  but  that  the  subject  may  be  fully 
exhibited,  we  may  observe,  1.  That  by  all  sober  divines  it  is  allowed, 
that  some  comfortable  persuasion,  or,  at  least,  hope  of  the  Divine 
favour,  is  attainable  by  true  Christians,  and  is  actually  possessed  by 
them,  except  under  the  influence  of  bodily  infirmities,  and  in  peculiar 
seasons  of  temptation,  and  that  all  true  faith  is,  in  some  degree,  (though 
to  what  extent  they  differ,)  personal  and  appropriating. 

"  The  third  part  of  repentance  is  faith,  whereby  we  do  apprehend  and 
take  hold  upon  the  promises  of  God,  touching  the  free  pardon  and  for- 
giveness of  our  sins ;  which  promises  are  sealed  up  unto  us,  with  the 
death  and  blood  shedding  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  P'or  what  should  it 
avail  and  profit  us  to  be  sorry  for  our  sins,  to  lament  and  bewail  that 
we  have  ofiended  our  most  bounteous  and  merciful  Father,  or  to  confess 
and  acknowledge  our  offences  and  trespasses,  though  it  be  done  never  so 
earnestly,  unless  we  do  steadfastly  believe,  and  be  fully  persuaded,  that 
God,  for  his  Son  Jesus  Christ's  sake,  will  forgive  us  all  our  sins,  and 
put  them  out  of  remembrance  and  from  his  sight  ?  Therefore,  they  that 
teach  repentance  without  a  lively  faith  in  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  do 
teach  none  other  but  Judas's  repentance."  {Homily  on  Repentance.) 

"  Faith  is  not  merely  a  speculative  but  a  practical  acknowledgment 
of  Jesus  as  the  Christ, — an  effort  and  motion  of  the  mind  toward  God  ; 
when  the  sinner,  convinced  of  sin,  accepts  with  thankfulness  the  proffer- 
ed terms  of  pardon,  and  in  humble  confidence  applying  individually  to 
himself  the  benefit  of  the  general  atonement,  in  the  elevated  language 
of  a  venerable  father  of  the  Church,  drinks  of  the  stream  which  flows 
from  the  Redeemer's  side.  The  effect  is,  that  in  a  little,  he  is  filled 
with  that  perfect  love  of  God  which  casteth  out  fear, — he  cleaves  to 
•God  with  the  entire  affection  of  the  soul."  {Bishop  Horsley.) 

Vol.  II.  18 


274  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  It  is  the  property  of  saving  faith,  that  it  hath  a  force  to  appropriate, 
and  make  Christ  our  own.  Without  this,  a  general  remote  behef  would 
have  been  cold  comfort.  '  He  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me,'  saith 
St.  Paul.  What  saith  St.  Chrysostom  ?  '  Did  Christ  die  only  for  St. 
Paul  ?  No  ;  non  exdudit,  sed  appropriat ,-'  he  excludes  not  others,  but 
he  will  secure  himself."  {Bishop  Brovmrigg.) 

2.  By  those  who  admit,  that  upon  previous  contrition  and  faith  in 
Christ,  an  act  of  justification  takes  place,  by  which  we  are  reconciled 
to  God,  and  adopted  into  his  family,  a  doctrine  which  has  been  Scrip- 
turally  established ;  it  must  also  be  admitted,  that  this  act  of  mercy  on 
the  part  of  God  is  entirely  kept  secret  from  us,  or  that,  by  some  means, 
it  is  made  knowable  by  us.  If  the  former,  there  is  no  remedy  at  all 
for  doubt,  and  fear,  and  tormenting  anticipation,  which  must  be  great, 
in  proportion  as  our  repentance  is  deep  and  genuine  ;  and  so  there  can 
be  no  comfort,  no  freedom,  no  cheerfulness  of  spirit  in  rehgion,  which 
contradicts  the  sentiments  of  all  Churches,  and  all  their  leading  theolo- 
gians.    What  is  still  more  important,  it  contradicts  the  Scriptures. 

To  all  true  believers,  the  Almighty  is  represented  as  the  "  God  of 
peace  and  consolation ;"  as  "  a  Father ;"  as  "  dwelling  in  them  and 
walking  in  them."  Nay,  there  is  a  marked  distinction  between  the 
assurances  of  grace  and  favour  made  to  penitents,  and  to  believers. 
The  declarations  as  to  the  former  are  highly  consolatory ;  but  they  con- 
stantly refer  to  some  future  good  designed  for  them  by  the  God  before 
whom  they  humble  themselves,  for  the  encouragement  of  their  seeking 
prayers,  and  their  efforts  of  trust.  "  To  that  man  will  I  look,  (a  Hebra- 
ism for  showing  favour,)  saith  the  Lord,  who  is  poor,  and  of  a  contrite 
spirit."  The  "  weary  and  heavy  laden"  are  invited  to  Christ,  that  he 
may  "  give  rest  unto  their  souls."  The  apostles  exhorted  men  to  repent 
and  be  baptized,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins.  But  to  all  who,  in 
the  Christian  sense,  are  believers,  or  who  have  the  faith  by  which  we 
are  justified,  the  language  is  much  higher.  "  We  have  peace  with 
God."  "We  joy  in  God  by  whom  we  have  received  the  atonement." 
They  are  exhorted  "  to  rejoice  in  the  Lord  always."  "  The  spirit  of 
bondage"  is  exchanged  for  "  the  Spirit  of  adoption."  They  are 
"Christ's."  They  are  "children,  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ."  They  "rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God."  They  are 
"  always  confident,  knowing,  that  while  at  home  in  the  body,  they  are 
absent  from  the  Lord,  but  that  when  absent  from  the  body,  they  shall 
be  present  with  the  Lord." 

3.  If  then  we  come  to  know  that  this  great  act  of  forgiveness  has 
taken  place  in  our  favour  ;  that  it  is  vouchsafed  to  us  in  particular,  and 
know  this  with  that  degree  of  conviction,  which  lays  a  sufficient  ground 
of  comfort  and  joy,  the  simple  question  is,  by  what  means  the  know- 
ledge of  tliis  is  attained  by  us  ?     The  general  promise  of  pardon  albna 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  275 

is,  in  all  the  schemes  just  stated,  acknowledged  to  be  insufficient  for 
this  purpose  ;  for  since  that  promise  is  suspended  upon  conditions,  they 
all  profess  to  explain  the  means  by  which  we  may  conclude  that  we  are 
actually  and  personally  interested  in  the  benefit  of  the  general  promise, 
the  conditions  being  on  our  part  personally  fulfilled.  The  first  opinion 
attributes  this  to  a  double  testimony,  a  direct  one  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
our  minds,  and  an  indirect  one  of  the  same  Spirit,  through  our  own 
minds,  and  founded  upon  his  moral  work  in  them :  or,  what  is  the  same 
thing,  the  testimony  of  our  own  spirit.  This  twofold  testimony  we 
think  clearly  established  by  the  texts  above  quoted.  For  the  first,  "  the 
Spirit  itself,"  and  the  "Spirit  of  his  Son,"  is  manifestly  the  Spirit  of 
God :  his  office  is  to  give  testimony,  and  the  object  of  the  testimony  is 
to  declare  that  we  are  the  sons  of  God.  When  also  the  apostle  in  Ro- 
mans viii,  16,  says  that  this  Spirit  bears  witness  "wiih'^  our  spirit,  he 
makes  our  own  minds  witnesses  with  him  to  the  same  fact,  though  in  a 
different  manner.  For  though  some  writers  will  have  the  compound  to 
be  used  here  for  the  simple  form  of  the  verb,  and  render  it  "to  witness 
to  our  spirit ;"  and  instances  of  this  use  of  the  compound  verb  do  occur 
in  the  New  Testament ;  yet  it  agrees  both  with  the  literal  rendering  of 
the  word,  and  with  other  passages  to  conjoin  this  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  with  those  confirmatory  proofs  of  our  adoption  which  arise  from 
his  work  within  us,  and  which  may,  upon  examination  of  our  state,  be 
called  the  testimony  of  our  own  mind  or  conscience.  To  this  testimony 
the  Apostle  Paul  refers  in  the  same  chapter,  "  They  that  are  after  the 
Spirit,  (do  mind)  the  things  of  the  Spirit."  "  But  ye  are  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  dwell  in  you : 
now  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his  ;  for  as 
many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  And 
again,  in  Galatians,  "  But  if  ye  be  led  of  the  Spirit,  ye  are  not  under  the 
law."     "  But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,"  6lc, 

4.  Two  witnesses,  and  a  twofold  testimony  is  then  sufficiently  esta- 
blished ;  but  the  main  consideration  is,  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  gives 
his  testimony  directly  to  the  mind,  by  impression,  suggestion,  or  by 
whatever  other  term  it  may  be  called,  or  mediately  by  our  own  spirits, 
in  some  such  way  as  is  described  by  Bishop  Bull  in  the  extract  above 
given  ;  by  "  illuminating  our  understandings  and  assisting  our  memories 
in  discussing  and  recollecting  those  arguments  of  hope  and  comfort 
within  ourselves,"  which  arise  from  "  the  graces  which  he  has  produced 
in  us ;"  or,  as  it  is  expressed  by  Mr.  Scott,  by  "  shining  upon  his  own 
work,  exciting  their  aflfections  into  lively  exercise,  rendering  them  very 
efficacious  upon  their  conduct,"  and  "  thus  puts  the  matter  beyond  doubt, 
for  while  they  feel  the  spirit  of  dutiful  children  toward  God,  they  become 
satisfied  concerning  his  paternal  love  to  them." 

To  this  statement  of  the  doctrine  we  object,  that  it  makes  the  testi- 

2 


276  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

mony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  point  of  fact  but  the  testimony  of  our  own 
spirit ;  and  by  holding  but  one  witness  contradicts  St.  Paul,  who,  as  we 
have  seen,  holds  two.  For  the  testimony  is  that  of  our  own  conscious- 
ness of  certain  moral  changes  which  have  taken  place ;  no  other  is  ad- 
mitted ;  and  therefore  it  is  but  one  testimony.  Nor  is  the  Holy  Spirit 
brought  in  at  all,  except  to  qualify  our  own  spirit  to  give  witness  by  as- 
sisting its  "  discernment  and  memory,"  according  to  Bishop  Bull,  and 
by  "  shining  upon  his  own  work,"  according  to  Mr.  Scott ;  and  so  there 
is  but  one  witness,  and  that  ourselves :  for  though  another  may  assist  a 
witness  to  prepare  and  arrange  his  evidence,  there  is  still  but  one  depo- 
sition, and  but  one  deposer.  This  is  made  still  stronger,  since  it  is  sup- 
posed by  both  these  writers,  that  there  is  no  impression  or  revelation 
from  the  Spirit  of  the  fact  of  our  adoption,  and  that  he  does  not  in  any 
way  which  we  may  distinguish  from  the  operation  of  our  own  minds, 
assist  us  to  prepare  this  evidence  ;  for  if  this  assistance,  or  shining  upon 
his  own  work,  could  be  ascertained  to  be  from  him  distinctly^  and  with 
intention  to  assure  us  from  these  moral  changes  that  we  are  adopted  into 
the  family  of  God,  then  an  immediate  collateral  impression  or  revelation 
would  be  supposed,  which  both  reject.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  we 
have  no  other  ground  to  conclude  those  "  graces  and  virtues"  which  we 
discern  in  ourselves  to  be  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  than  the  general  one, 
that  all  good  in  man  is  of  his  production,  and  our  repentance  and  con- 
trition might  as  well,  on  this  general  ground,  be  concluded  to  be  the 
evidence  of  pardon,  although  they  arise  from  our  consciousness  of  guilt, 
and  our  need  of  pardon.  The  argument  of  this  opinion,  simply  and  in 
fact,  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  works  moral  changes  in  the  heart,  and  that 
these  are  the  evidence  of  our  sonship.  It  goes  not  beyond  this ;  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  not  excluded  by  this  opinion  as  the  source  of  good  in 
man,  he  is  not  excluded  as  qualifying  our  minds  to  adduce  evidence  as 
to  certain  changes  being  wrought  within  us ;  but  he  is  excluded  as  a 
witness,  although  he  is  said  so  explicitly  by  the  apostle  to  give  witness 
to  the  fact,  not  of  a  moral  change,  but  of  our  adoption. 

5.  But  farther,  suppose  our  minds  to  be  so  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  to  discern  the  reality  of  his  work  in  us ;  and  in  an  investigation, 
whether  we  are  or  are  not  accepted  of  God,  pardoned  by  his  mercy,  and 
adopted  into  his  family,  we  depose  this  as  the  evidence  of  it ;  to  what 
degree  must  this  work  of  the  Spirit  in  us  have  advanced  before  it  can 
be  evidence  of  this  fact  ?  We  have  seen  that  it  were  absurd  to  allege 
contrition,  and  penitence,  and  fear,  as  the  proofs  of  our  pardon,  since 
they  suppose,  that  we  are  still  under  condemnation ;  what  farther  work 
of  the  Spirit,  then,  is  the  proof?  The  reply  to  this  usually  is,  that  though 
repentance  should  not  be  evidence  of  pardon,  yet,  when  faith  is  added, 
this  becomes  evidence,  since  God  has  declared  in  his  word,  that  we  are 
"justified  by  faith,"  and  "  whosoever  believeth  shall  be  saved." 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  277 

To  this  we  reply,  that  though  we  should  become  conscious  of  both 
repentance  and  faith,  either  by  "  a  reflex  ?ct  of  our  own  minds,"  or  by 
the  assistance  of  the  Spirit  "  shining  upon  his  own  work,"  this  would  be 
no  evidence  of  our  forgiveness ;  our  spirit  would,  in  that  case,  witness 
the  fact  of  our  repenting  and  believing,  but  that  would  be  no  witness  to 
the  fact  of  our  adoption.  Justification  is  an  act  of  God  ;  it  is  secret  and 
invisible  ;  it  passes  in  his  own  mind  ;  it  is  declared  by  no  outward  sign  ; 
and  no  one  can  know,  except  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  knows  the  mind  of 
God,  whether  we  are  pardoned  or  not,  unless  it  had  been  stated  in  his 
word,  that  in  every  case  pardon  is  dispensed  when  repentance  and  faith 
have  reached  some  definite  degree,  clearly  pointed  out,  so  that  we  can- 
not fail  to  ascertain  that  they  have  reached  that  degree ;  and,  also,  un- 
less we  were  expressly  authorized  to  be  ourselves  the  judges  of  this 
case,  and  confidently  and  comfortably  to  conclude  our  justification.  For 
it  is  not  enough  that  we  have  faith.  Faith,  both  as  assent  and  confi- 
dence, has  every  possible  degree ;  it  is  capable  of  mixture  with  doubt, 
and  self  dependence  ;  nor  v.ithout  some  definite  and  particular  charac-  • 
ters  being  assigned  to  justifying  faith,  could  we  ever,  with  any  confi- 
dence, conclude  as  to  our  own.  But  we  have  no  such  particular  descrip- 
tion of  faith ;  nor  are  we  authorized,  any  where,  to  make  ourselves  the 
judges  of  the  fact,  whether  the  act  of  pardon,  as  to  us,  has  passed  the 
mind  of  God.  The  apostle,  in  the  passages  quoted  above,  has  assigned 
that  office  to  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  it  is  in  no  part  of  Scripture  appointed 
to  us. 

If,  then,  we  have  no  authority  from  God  to  conclude  that  we  are  par- 
doned when  faith,  in  an  uncertain  degree,  is  added  to  repentance,  the 
whole  becomes  a  matter  of  inference ;  and  we  argue,  that  having  "  re- 
pentance and  faith,"  we  are  forgiven  ;  in  other  words,  that  these  are  the 
sufiicient  evidences  of  pardon.  But  repentance  and  faith  are  exercised 
IN  ORDER  to  pardon ;  that  must,  therefore,  be  subsequent  to  both,  and 
they  cannot,  for  that  reason,  be  the  evidence  of  it,  or  the  evidence  of 
pardon  might  be  enjoyed  before  pardon  is  actually  received,  which  is 
absurd.  But  it  has  been  said,  "  that  we  have  the  testimony  of  God  in 
his  word,  that  when  repentance  and  faith  exist,  God  has  infallibly  con- 
nected pardon  with  them  from  the  moment  they  are  perceived  to  exist, 
and  so  it  may  be  surely  inferred  from  them."  The  answer  is,  that  we 
have  no  such  testimony.  We  have,  through  the  mercy  of  God,  the  pro- 
mise of  pardon  to  all  who  repent  and  believe ;  but  repentance  is  not 
pardon,  and  faith  is  not  pardon,  but  they  are  its  prerequisites ;  each  is 
a  sine  qua  non,  but  surely  not  the  pardon  itself,  nor,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  can  either  be  considered  the  evidence  of  pardon,  without  an  ab, 
surdity.  They  are  means  to  that  end  ;  but  nothing  more  :  and  though 
God  has  "  infallibly  connected"  the  blessing  of  pardon  with  repentance 
and  faith,  he  has  not  connected  it  with  any  kind  of  repent£Uice,  nor  with 

2 


273  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

any  kind  of  faith ;  nor  with  every  degree  of  repentance,  nor  with  every 
degree  of  faith.  How  then  shall  we  ever  know,  whether  our  repentance 
arid  faith  are  accepted  unless  pardon  actually  follow  them  ?  And  as  this 
pardon  cannot  be  attested  by  them,  for  the  reason  above  given,  and  must, 
therefore,  have  an  attestation  of  higher  authority,  and  of  a  distinct  kind, 
the  only  attestation  conceivable  which  remains,  is  the  direct  witness  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Either  this  must  be  acknowledged,  or  a  painful  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  genuineness  or  the  required  measure  and  degree  of  our 
repentance  and  faith,  quite  destructive  of  "  comfort,"  must  remain  through- 
out life. 

6.  But  if  neither  our  repentance,  nor  even  a  consciousness  of  faith, 
when  joined  with  it,  can  be  the  evidence  of  the  fact  of  our  adoption  :  it 
has  been  urged,  that  when  all  those  graces,  which  are  called  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit,  are  found  in  our  experience,  they,  at  least,  must  be  suffi- 
cient  evidence  of  the  fact,  without  supposing  a  more  direct  testimony  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.     The  "  fruits"  thus  referred  to,  are  those  enumerated 
by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.     "  But  the  fruit  of  the  Spi- 
rit, is  love,  joy,  peace,  long  suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,"  &c.    Two 
things  will  here  be  granted,  and  they  greatly  strengthen  the  argument 
for  a  direct  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit : — that  these  fruits  are  found 
only  in  those  who  have  been  received,  by  the  remission  of  their  sins, 
into  the  Divine  favour  ;  and  that  they  are  fruits  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption. 
The  first  is  proved  from  the  connection  of  the  words  which  follow : 
"  And  they  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh,"  &;c.     For  to  be 
"  Christ's,"  and  to  be  "  in  Christ,^^  are  phrases,  with  the  apostle,  equi- 
valent to  being  in  a  state  of  justification  : — "  There  is  no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  i7i  Christ  Jesus."     The  second  is  proved  by  the  con- 
nection of  the  words  with  verse  18,  "  But  if  ye  be  led  by  the  Spirit,  ye 
are  not  under  the  law,"  for  these  words  are  exactly  parallel  to  chap,  iv, 
5,  6,  "  To  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive 
the  adoption  of  sons  ;  and  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the 
Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father."     These  are, 
then,  the  fruits  following  upon  a  state  of  pardon,  adoption,  and  our  re- 
ceiving the  Spirit  of  adoption.     We  allow  that  they  presuppose  pardon  ; 
but  then  they  as  cleayly  presuppose  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  "  sent  forth 
into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father  ;"  that  is,  they  not  only  presuppose 
our  pardon,  but  pardon  previously  attested  and  made  known  to  us ;  the 
persuasion  of  which  conveyed  to  the  mind,  not  by  them,  but  by  the  Spi- 
rit of  adoption,  is  the  foundation  of  them  ;  at  least,  of  that  "  love,  joy, 
and  peace,"  which  are  mentioned  first,  and  must  not  be  separated,  in  the 
argument,  from  the  other.     Nor  can  these  "  fruits"  result  from  any  thing 
but  manifested  pardon ;  they  cannot  themselves  manifest  our  pardon,  for 
they  cannot  exist  till  it  is  manifested.     If  we  "  love  God,"  it  is  because 
we  know  him  as  God  reconciled ;  if  we  have  "joy  in  God,"  it  is  becausQ 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  279 

"  we  have  received  the  reconciUation  ;"  if  we  have  peace,  it  is  because 
"  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  God,  conceived  of  as  angry,  cannot  be  the  object  of 
filial  love  ;  pardon  unfelt,  supposes  guilt  and  fear  still  to  burden  the  mind, 
and  guilt  and  "  joy"  and  "  peace"  cannot  exist.  But  by  the  argument 
of  those  who  make  these  the  media  of  ascertaining  the  fact  of  our  for- 
giveness  and  adoption,  we  must  be  supposed  to  love  God,  while  yet  we 
feel  him  to  be  angiy  with  us  ;  to  rejoice  and  have  peace,  while  the  fear- 
ful apprehensions  of  the  consequences  of  unremitted  sin  are  not  removed ; 
and  if  this  is  impossible,  then  the  ground  of  our  love,  and  joy,  and  peace, 
is  pardon  revealed  and  witnessed,  directly  and  immediately  by  the  Spirit 
of  adoption. 

It  has  been  said,  indeed,  that  love  to  God  may  be  produced  from  a 
consideration  of  God's  general  love  to  mankind  in  his  Son,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  force  of  the  above  argument  is  broken  ;  but  we  reply,  that, 
in  Scripture,  Christians  are  spoken  of  as  "  reconciled  to  God  ;"  as  "  trans- 
lated into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son  ;"  as  "  children,"  "  heirs,"  &;c  ; 
and,  correspondently  with  these  relations,  their  love  is  spoken  of  as  love 
to  God  as  their  Father, — love  to  God  as  their  God  in  covenant,  who  calls 
himself  "  their  God,"  and  them  "  his  people."     This  is  the  love  of  God 
exhibited  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  question  is,  whether  such  a 
love  of  God  as  this  can  spring  from  a  knowledge  of  his  "  general  love  to 
man,"  or  whether  it  arises,  under  the  Spirit's  influence,  from  a  persua- 
sion  of  his  pardoning  love  to  us  "  individually."     To  clear  this,  we  may 
divide  those  who  hear  the  Gospel,  or  Christians  by  profession,  into  the 
following  classes  : — the  carnal   and    careless  ; — the  despairing  ; — the 
penitent,  who  seek  God  with  hope  as  well  as  desire,  now  discouraged 
by  their  fears,  and  sunk  under  their  load  of  conscious  guilt,  and  again 
encouraged  by  a  degree  of  hope  ; — and,  lastly,  those  who  are  "justified 
by  faith,  and  have  peace  with  God."     The  first  class  know  God's  "  ge- 
neral love  to  man  ;"  but  it  will  not  be  pleaded  that  they  love  him. — ^The 
second  know  the  "  general  love  of  God  to  man  ;"  but,  thinking  them- 
selves exceptions  from  his  mercy,  cannot  love  him  on  that  account. — 
The  third  admit  the  same  "  general  love  of  God  to  man,"  and  it  is  the 
foundation  of  their  hope ;  but  does  this  produce  love  ?     The  view  of  his 
mercy  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  in  the  general  promise,  may  produce  a 
degree  of  this  emotion,  or  perhaps  more  properly  of  gratitude ;  but  do 
they  love  his  justice,  under  the  condemnation  of  which  they  feel  them- 
selves ;  and  his  holiness,  the  awful  purity  of  which  makes  them  afraid  ? 
If  not,  they  do  not  love  God  as  God ;  that  is,  as  a  whole,  in  all  his  per- 
fections, the  awful  as  well  as  the  attractive,  the  alarming  as  well  as  the 
encouraging  ;  which  is,  doubtless,  the  character  of  the  love  of  those  who 
are  justified  by  faith.     But,  leaving  this  nicer  distinction,  the  main  ques* 
tjon  is,  do  they  love  him  as  a  Father,  as  their  God  in  covenant ;  with 

2 


280  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAKT 

the  love  which  leads  up  the  affections  of  "  peace  and  joy,"  as  well  as 
"  gentleness,  goodness,  and  fidelity  ?" — for  in  this  company,  so  to  speak, 
the  apostle  places  this  grace,  where  it  is  a  "  fruit  of  the  Spirit," — "  the 
Spirit  which  they  that  believed  on  him  should  receive."  This  is  impos- 
sible ;  for  these  seeking,  though  hoping  penitents,  do  not  regard  God  as 
their  Father  in  that  special  sense  in  which  the  word  is  correlative  "  to 
children  and  heirs  ;" — they  do  not  regard  him  as  their  God  in  that  cove- 
nant which  says,  "  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and  their 
sins  and  iniquities  I  will  remember  no  more ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a 
God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people."  This  is  what  they  seek,  but 
have  not  found  ;  and  they  cannot  love  God  under  relations  in  which  they 
know,  and  painfully  feel,  that  he  does  not  yet  stand  to  them.  They  know 
his  "  general  love  to  man,^^  but  not  his  pardoning  love  to  them ;  and 
therefore  cannot  love  him  as  reconciled  to  them  by  the  death  of  his  Son. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  last  class  only,  the  "justified  by  faith," 
bear  that  love  to  God,  which  is  marked  by  the  characters  impressed  upon 
it  by  the  apostles.  He  is  their  Father,  and  they  love  him  as  his  chil- 
dren :  he  is  their  God  in  covenant ;  and,  as  they  can,  in  this  appropri- 
ating sense,  call  him  their  God,  they  love  him  corres'pondemily,  though 
not  adequately.  Their  love,  therefore,  rests  upon  their  persuasion  of  their 
•personal  and  individual  interest  in  his  pardoning,  adopting,  and  cove- 
nant-fulfilling mercy  to  them ;  and  where  these  benefits  are  not  person- 
ally enjoyed,  this  kind  of  love  to  God  cannot  exist.  This,  then,  we  think 
sufficiently  estabhshes  the  fact,  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, when  speaking  of  the  love  of  believers  to  God,  always  suppose 
that  it  arises  from  a  persuasion  of  God's  special  love  to  them  as  indivi- 
duals, and  not  merely  from  a  knowledge  of  his  "  general  love"  to  man- 
kind. 

Others  there  are  who,  in  adverting  to  these  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  over- 
look "  love,  joy,  and  peace,"  and  fix  their  attention  only  on  "  gentleness, 
goodness,  meekness,  fidelity,  and  temperance,"  as  those  graces  which 
make  up  our  practical  holiness,  and  thus  argue  justification  from  regene- 
ration, which  is  an  unquestionable  concomitant  of  it.  The  reply  to  this  is, 
that  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  undivided ;  that  all  attempts  at  separating 
it  are,  therefore,  criminal  and  delusive  ;  and  that  where  there  is  not  "  love, 
joy,  and  peace,"  we  have  no  Scriptural  reason  to  conclude  that  there  is 
that  gentleness,  that  goodness,  that  meekness,  d:c,  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks,  or,  in  other  words,  that  there  is  that  state  of  regeneration  which 
the  Scriptures  describe  ;  at  least  not  ordinarily,  for  we  leave  seasons  of 
deep  spiritual  exercise,  and  cases  of  physical  depression,  to  be  treated 
according  to  their  merits.  Thus  this  argument  falls  to  the  groimd.  But 
the  same  conclusion  is  reached  in  another  way.  Persons  of  this  opi- 
nion would  infer  forgiveness  from  holiness ;  but  hohness  consists  in  ha- 
bits and  acts  of  which  love  to  God  is  the  principle,  for  we  first  "  love 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  281 

God,"  and  then  "  keep  his  commandments."  Holiness  then  is  preceded 
by  love  as  its  root,  and  that,  as  we  have  seen,  by  manifested  pardon. 
For  this  love  is  the  love  of  a  pardoned  sinner  to  God  as  a  Father,  as  a 
God  in  actual  covenant,  offered  on  one  part,  and  accepted  on  the  other ; 
and  it  exists  before  holiness,  as  the  principle  exists  before  the  act  and  the 
habit.  In  the  process  then  of  inferring  our  justified  state  from  moral 
changes,  if  we  find  what  we  think  holiness  without  love,  it  is  the  holi- 
ness of  a  Pharisee  without  principle.  If  we  join  to  it  the  love  which  is 
supposed  to  be  capable  of  springing  from  God's  general  love  to  man, 
this  is  a  principle  of  which  Scripture  takes  no  cognizance,  and  which 
at  best,  if  it  exist  at  all,  must  be  a  very  mixed  and  defective  sentiment, 
and  cannot  originate  a  holiness  Uke  that  which  distinguishes  the  "  new 
creature"  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  warrantable  evidence  of  either  regene- 
ration or  justification.  But  if  we  find  love  to  God  as  a  God  reconciled ; 
as  a  Father ;  as  a  God  who  "  loves  us ;"  it  is  plain  that,  as  this  love  is 
the  root  of  holiness,  it  precedes  it :  and  we  must  consider  God  under 
these  lovely  relations  on  some  other  evidence  than  "  the  testimony  of 
our  own  spirits,"  which  evidence  can  be  no  other  than  that  of  the  Spirit 
of  God. 

Thus  it  is  established,  that  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  direct  and  not 
mediate ;  and  the  follownig  extracts  will  show  that  this  is  no  new  or 
unsanctioned  doctrine.  Luther  "  was  strengthened  by  the  discourse  of  an 
old  Augustine  monk,  concerning  the  certainty  we  may  have  that  our 
sins  are  forgiven.  God  likewise  gave  him  much  comfort  in  liis  tempta- 
tions, by  that  saying  of  St.  Bernard,  '  It  is  necessary  to  believe,  first  of 
all,  that  you  cannot  have  forgiveness  but  by  the  mercy  of  God ;  and 
next,  that  through  his  mercy,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.^  This  is  the 
witness  which  the  Holy  Spirit  bears  in  thy  heart,  '  TJiy  sins  are  for- 
given  thee.^  And  thus  it  is,  that  according  to  the  apostle,  a  man  is 
justified  freely  through  faith."  {Life  of  Martin  Luther,  by  John  Daniel 
Hersmchmid.) 

"  In  the  88th  Psalm  is  contained  the  prayer  of  one,  who,  although  he 
felt  in  himself  that  he  had  not  only  man,  but  also  God  angry  toward 
him ;  yet  he  by  prayer  humbly  resorted  unto  God,  as  the  only  port  of 
consolation  ;  and,  in  the  midst  of  his  desperate  state  of  trouble,  put  the 
hope  of  his  salvation  in  him  whom  he  felt  his  enemy.  Howbeit,  no 
man  of  himself  can  do  this,  but  the  Spirit  of  God  that  striketh  man's 
heart  with  fear,  prayeth  for  the  man  stricken  and  feared,  with  unspeak- 
able groanings.  And  when  you  feel  yourself,  and  know  any  other 
oppressed  after  such  sort,  be  glad ;  for  after  that  God  hath  made  you 
know  what  you  be  of  yourself,  he  will  doubtless  show  you  comfort,  and 
declare  unto  you  what  you  be  in  Christ  his  only  Son  ;  and  use  prayer 
often,  for  that  is  the  means  whereby  God  will  be  sought  unto  for  his 
gifts.'*  (Bishop  Hooper.     See  Fox^s  Acts  and  Monuments.) 

2 


282  THEOLOGiCAL  INSTITUTES.  (PART 

"  It  is  the  proper  effect  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  cleanse  our  con- 
sciences from  dead  works  to  serve  the  Uving  God ;  which,  if  we  find  it 
doth,  Christ  is  come  to  us  as  he  is  to  come  ;  and  the  Spirit  is  come,  and 
puts  his  teste,  (witness.)  And  if  we  have  his  teste,  we  may  go  our  way 
in  peace ;  we  have  kept  a  right  feast  to  him,  and  to  the  memory  of  his 
coming.  Even  so  come.  Lord  Jesus,  and  come,  O  blessed  Spirit,  and 
hear  witness  to  our  spirit  that  Chrisfs  water,  and  his  blood,  we  have  our 
part  in  both  ,•  both  in  the  fountain  opened  for  sin  and  uncleanness,  and 
in  the  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  the  legacy  whereof  is  everlasting 
life  in  thy  kingdom  of  glory."  (Bishop  Andrew,  Sermon  of  the  sending 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.) 

"  Tlie  Spirit  which  God  hath  given  us  to  assure  us  that  we  are  the 
sons  of  God,  to  enable  us  to  call  upon  him  as  our  Father."  (Hooker. 
Sermon  of  Certainty  of  Faith.) 

^'  Unto  you,  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his 
Son  into  your  hearts,  to  the  end  ye  might  know  that  Christ  hath  built  you 
upon  a  rock  immovable,  that  he  hath  registered  your  names  in  the  book 
of  hfe."  (Hooker.    Sermon  on  Jude.) 

"  From  adoption  flows  all  Christians'  joy  ;  for  the  Spirit  of  adoption 
is,  first,  a  witness,  Rom.  viii,  16  ;  second,  a  seal,  Eph.  iv,  30  ;  third,  the 
pledge  and  earnest  of  our  inheritance,  Eph.  i,  14,  setting  a  holy  secu- 
rity on  the  soul,  whereby  it  rejoiceth  even  in  affliction,  in  hope  of  glory." 
(Archbishop  Usher.     Sum  and  Substance  of  Christian  Religion.) 

"  This  is  one  great  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  ratify  and  seal  up  to 
us  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins.  '  In  whom,  after  ye  believed,  ye  were 
sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,' "  &;c.  (Bishop  Brownrigg's 
Sermon  on  Whitsunday.) 

"  It  is  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  assure  us  of  the  adoption  of 
sons,  to  create  in  us  a  sense  of  the  paternal  love  of  God  toward  us,  to 
give  us  an  earnest  of  our  everlasting  inheritance.  The  love  of  God  is 
shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  given  unto  us. 
For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  are  the  sons  of  God.  And 
because  we  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our 
hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father.  For  we  have  not  received  the  spirit  of 
bondage  again  to  fear ;  but  we  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adoption, 
whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father.  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with 
our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.  As,  therefore,  we  are  bom 
again  by  the  Spirit,  and  receive  from  liim  our  regeneration,  so  we  are 
also  assured  by  the  same  Spirit  of  our  adoption ;  and  because  being 
sons,  we  are  also  heirs,  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,  by  the 
same  Spirit  we  have  the  pledge,  or  rather  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance. 
For  he  which  establisheth  us  in  Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us  in  God,  who 
hath  also  sealed  us,  and  hath  given  us  the  earnest  of  his  Spirit  in  our 
hearts ;  so  that  we  are  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  which  is 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES;  283 

the  earnest  of  our  inheritance  until  the  redemption  of  the  purchased  pos- 
session." (BisJiop  Pearson  on  the  Creed.) 

"  This  is  that  -rvsujxa  viokcfiag,  that  Spirit  of  adoption  which  consti, 
tuteth  us  the  sons  of  God,  qualifying  us  so  to  be  by  dispositions  resem- 
bling God,  and  fihal  affections  toward  him  ;  certifying  vs  that  we  are  so, 
and  causing  us,  by  a  free  instinct,  to  cry,  Abba,  Father ;  running  into  his 
bosom  of  love,  and  flying  under  the  wings  of  his  mercy  in  all  our  needs 
and  distresses ;  whence,  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit,  they  (saith 
Paul)  are  the  sorts  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  (Dr.  Isaac  Barrow's  Sermon  on 
the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.) 

The  second  testimony  is,  that  of  our  own  spirits,  "  and  is  a  conscious- 
ness of  our  having  received  in  and  by  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  the  tempers 
mentioned  in  the  word  of  God,  as  belonging  to  his  adopted  children  ; 
that  we  are  inwardly  conformed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  the  image  of 
his  Son,  and  that  we  walk  before  him  in  justice,  mercy,  and  truth,  doing 
the  things  which  are  pleasing  in  his  sight."  (Wesley^ s  Sermons.)  But 
this  testimony,  let  it  be  observed,  is  not  to  the  fact  of  our  adoption 
directly,  but  to  the  fact  that  we  have,  in  truth,  received  the  Spirit  of 
adoption,  and  that  we  are  under  no  delusive  impressions.  This  will 
enable  us  to  answer  a  common  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's 
direct  witness.  This  is,  that  when  the  evidence  of  a  first  witness  must 
be  supported  by  that  of  a  second,  before  it  can  be  fully  rehed  on,  it 
appears  to  be  by  no  means  of  a  "  decisive  and  satisfactory  character ; 
and  that  it  might  be  as  well  to  have  recourse  at  once  to  the  evidence, 
which,  after  all,  seems  to  sustain  the  main  weight  of  the  cause."  The 
answer  to  this  is  not  difficult :  if  it  were,  it  would  weigh  nothing  against 
an  express  text  of  Scripture,  which  speaks  of  the  witness  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  the  witness  of  our  own  spirits.  Both  must,  therefore,  be  con- 
eluded  necessary,  though  we  should  not  see  their  concomitancy  and 
mutual  relation.  The  case  is  not,  however,  involved  in  entire  obscurity. 
Our  own  spirits  can  take  no  cognizance  of  the  mind  of  God,  as  to  our 
actual  pardon,  and  can  bear  no  witness  to  that  fact.  The  Holy  Spirit  only, 
who  knows  the  mind  of  God,  can  be  this  witness ;  and  if  the  fact,  that 
God  is  reconciled  to  us,  can  only  be  known  to  him,  by  him  only  can  it 
be  attested  to  us.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  "  as  well  for  us  to  have 
recourse  at  once  to  the  evidence  of  our  own  spirits  ;"  because,  as  to  this 
fact,  our  own  spirits  have  no  evidence  to  give.  They  cannot  give  direct 
evidence  of  it ;  for  we  know  not  what  passes  in  the  mind  of  the  invisible 
God :  they  cannot  give  indirect  evidence  of  the  fact ;  for  no  moral 
phanges,  of  which  our  spirits  can  be  conscious,  have  been  stated  in 
Scripture  as  the  proofs  of  our  pardon  ;  they  prove  that  there  is  a  work 
of  God  m  our  hearts,  but  they  are  not  proofs  of  our  actual  forgiveness. 
pur  own  spirits  are  competent  witnesses  that  such  moral  effects  have 


281  theologicaIj  institutes.  [part 

been  produced  in  our  hearts  and  character,  as  it  is  the  office  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  produce ;  they  prove,  therefore,  the  reahty  of  the  pre. 
sence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  us,  and  in  us.  That  competent  and  infal- 
lible  witness  has  borne  his  testimony  that  God  is  become  our  Father ; 
he  has  shed  abroad  his  holy  comfort,  the  comfort  which  arises  from  the 
sense  of  pardon, — and  his  moral  operation  within  us,  accompanying,  or 
immediately  following  upon  this,  making  us  new  creatures  in  Christ 
Jesus,  is  the  proof  that  we  are  in  no  delusion  as  to  the  witness  who 
gives  this  testimony  being,  in  truth,  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Of  the  four  opinions  on  this  subject  entertained  by  divines,  the  first 
alone  is  fully  conformable  to  the  Scriptures,  and  ought,  therefore,  to  be 
behoved  and  taught.  The  second  opinion  is  refuted  in  our  examination 
of  the  third ;  for  what  is  called  "  the  reflex  act  of  faith,"  is  only  a  con- 
sciousness of  belie\ing,  which  we  have  shown  must  be  exercised  in 
order  to  pardon,  but  cannot  be  an  evidence  of  it.  The  third  opinion 
has  been  examined  in  all  its  parts,  except  the  reference  to  "  voices  and 
impulses,"  in  the  quotation  from  Scott's  Commentary,  which  appears  to 
have  been  tlirown  in  ad  captandum.  To  this  we  may  reply,  that  how- 
ever the  fact  of  his  adoption  is  revealed  to  man  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is 
done  by  his  influence  and  inexplicable  operation,  producing  clear  satis, 
faction  and  conviction,  that  God  is  reconciled ;  that  "  our  iniquities  are 
forgiven,  and  our  sins  covered."  The  fourth  ooinion  was  refuted  when 
first  stated. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

Extent  of  the  Atonement. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  some  of  the  leading  blessings  derived  to 
man  from  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  conditions  on  which  they  are 
made  attainable.  Before  the  remainder  are  adduced,  it  may  be  here  a 
proper  place  to  inquire  into  the  extent  of  that  atonement  for  sin  made 
by  the  death  of  our  Saviour,  and  whether  the  blessings  of  justification, 
regeneration,  and  adoption,  are  rendered  attainable  by  all  to  whom  the 
Gospel  is  proclaimed. 

This  inquiry  leads  us  into  what  is  called  the  Calvinistic  controversy; 
a  controversy  which  has  always  been  conducted  with  great  ardour,  and 
sometimes  with  intemperance.  I  shall  endeavour  to  consider  such  parts 
of  it  as  are  comprehended  in  the  question  before  us,  with  perfect  calm- 
ness and  fairness ;  recollecting,  on  the  one  hand,  how  many  excellent 
and  learned  men  have  been  arranged  on  each  side  ;  and,  on  the  other, 
that  while  all  honour  is  due  to  great  names,  the  plain  and  unsophisticated 
sense  of  the  word  of  inspired  truth  must  alone  decide  on  a  subject  with 
respect  to  which  it  is  not  silent. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  285 

In  the  system  usually  called  by  the  name  of  Calvinism,  and  which 
shall  subsequently  be  exhibited  in  its  different  modifications,  there  are, 
I  think,  many  great  errors  ;  but  they  have  seldom  been  held  except  in 
connection  with  a  class  of  vital  truths.  By  many  writers  who  have 
attacked  this  system,  the  truth  which  it  contains,  as  well  as  the  error, 
has  often  been  invaded  ;  and  the  assault  itself  has  been  not  unfrequently 
conducted  on  principles  exceedingly  anti-scriptural,  and  fatally  delusive. 
These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  inspire  caution.  The  controversy 
is  a  very  voluminous  one ;  and  yet  no  great  dexterity  is  required  to 
exhibit  it  with  clearness  in  a  comparatively  small  compass.  Its  essence 
lies  in  very  limited  bounds  ;  and,  according  to  the  plan  of  this  work,  the 
whole  question  will  be  tested,  first  and  chiefly,  by  Scriptural  authority. 
High  Calvinism,  indeed,  affects  the  mode  of  reasoning  a  priori^  and 
delights  in  metaphysics.  To  some  also  it  gives  most  delight  to  see  it 
opposed  on  the  same  ground ;  and  to  such  disputants  it  will  be  much 
less  imposing  to  resort  primarily,  and  with  all  simplicity,  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  sacred  writings.  "It  is  sometimes  complained,"  says 
one,  "  that  the  mind  is  unduly  biassed  in  its  judgment,  by  a  continual 
reference  to  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  The  complaint  is  just,  if 
the  Scriptures  are  not  the  word  of  God :  but  if  they  are,  there  is  an 
opposite  and  corresponding  danger  to  be  guarded  against,  that  of  suffer- 
ing the  mind  to  be  unduly  biassed  in  the  study  and  interpretation  of  the 
revealed  will  of  God,  by  the  deductions  of  unaided  reason."  {Dr.  White- 
ley^  s  Essays.) 

With  respect  to  the  controvers}^,  we  may  also  observe,  that  it  forms  a 
clear  case  of  appeal  to  the  Scriptures :  for  to  whom  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  death  are  extended,  whether  to  the  whole  of  our  race,  or  to  a 
part,  can  be  matter  of  revelation  only  ;  and  the  sole  province  of  reason 
is  that  of  interpreting,  with  fairness,  and  consistently  with  the  acknow- 
ledged principles  of  that  revelation,  those  parts  of  it  in  which  the  subject 
is  directly  or  incidentally  introduced. 

The  question  before  us,  put  into  its  most  simple  form,  is,  whether  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  did  so  die  for  all  men,  as  to  make  salvation  attainable 
by  all  men ;  and  the  affirmative  of  this  question  is,  we  think,  the  doc 
trine  of  Scripture. 

We  assume  that  this  is  plainly  expressed, 

1.  In  all  those  passages  which  declare  that  Christ  died  ^^for  all 
men,"  and  speak  of  his  death  as  an  atonement  for  the  sins  "  of  the  tchole 
world:' 

We  have  already  seen,  in  treating  of  our  Lord's  atonement,  in  what 
sense  the  phrase,  to  die  "for  us,"  must  be  understood  ;  that  it  signifies 
to  die  in  the  place  and  stead  of  man,  as  a  sacrificial  oblation,  by  which 
satisfaction  is  made  for  the  sins  of  the  individual,  so  that  they  become 
remissible  upon  the  terms  of  the  evangelical  covenant.     When,  there- 


286  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

fore,  it  is  said,  that  Christ  «  by  the  grace  of  God  tasted  death  for  every 
man ;"  and  that  "  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also /or  the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;"  it  can  only,  we  think, 
be  fairly  concluded  from  such  declarations,  and  from  many  other  fami- 
liar texts,  in  which  the  same  phraseology  is  employed,  that,  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  the  sins  of  every  man  are  rendered  remissible,  and  that  salva- 
tion is  consequently  attainable  by  every  man.  Again,  our  Lord  calls 
himself  "  the  Saviour  of  the  world ;"  and  is,  by  St.  Paul,  called  "  the 
Saviour  of  all  men.^^  John  the  Baptist  points  him  out  as  "  the  Lamb 
of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ;"  and  our  Lord  himself 
declares,  "  God  so  loved  the  worlds  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life :  for  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world ; 
but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved."  So,  also  the  Apostle 
Paul,  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciUng  the  world  unto  himself,  not  im- 
puting their  trespasses  unto  them." 

2.  In  those  passages  which  attribute  an  equal  extent  to  the  effects 
of  the  death  Of  Christ  as  to  the  effects  of  the  fall  of  our  first  parents. 
"  For  if  through  the  offence  of  one  7nany  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath 
abounded  unto  many.^'  "  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  (1) 

As  the  unlimited  extent  of  Christ's  atonement  to  all  mankind,  is  plainly 
expressed  in  the  above-cited  passages,  so  is  it,  we  also  assume,  neces- 
sarily implied, 

1.  In  those  which  declare  that  Christ  died  not  only  for  those  that  are 

(1)  To  these  might  be  added  all  thos^  passages  which  ascribe  the  abolition 
of  bodily  death  to  Christ,  who,  in  this  respect,  repairs  the  effect  of  the  trans- 
gression of  Adam,  which  he  could  only  do  in  consequence  of  having  redeemed 
that  body  from  the  power  of  the  grave.  This  argument  may  be  thus  stated. 
It  is  taught  in  Scripture,  that  all  shall  rise  from  the  dead;  It  is  equally 
clear  from  the  same  authority,  that  all  shall  rise  in  consequence  of  the  inter- 
position of  Christ,  the  second  Adam^  the  representative  and  Redeemer  of  man 
— "  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  if  the  wicked  are  raised  from  the  dead,  it  is  in  conse- 
quence of  the  power  which  Christ,  as  Redeemer,  acquired  over  them,  and  of 
his  right  in  them.  That  this  resurrection  is  to  them  a  curse,  was  not  in  the 
purpose  of  God,  but  arises  from  their  wilful  rejection  of  the  Gospel.  To  be 
restored  to  life  is  in  itself  a  good  ;  that  it  is  turned  to  an  evil  is  their  own 
fault ;  and  if  they  are  not  raised  from  the  dead  in  consequence  of  Christ's  right 
in  them,  acquired  by  purchase,  it  behooves  those  of  a  different  opinion  to  show 
under  what  other  constitution  than  that  of  the  Gospel  a  resurrection  of  the  body 
is  provided  for.  The  original  law  contains  no  intimation  of  this,  nor  of  a  general 
judgment,  which  latter  supposes  a  suspension  of  the  sentence  inconsistent  with 
the  strictly  legal  penalty,  '•  irt  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die." 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  287 

saved,  but  for  those  who  do,  or  may  perish ;  so  that  it  cannot  be  argued, 
from  the  actual  condemnation  of  men,  that  they  were  excepted  from 
many  actual,  and  from  all  the  offered,  benefits  of  his  death.  "  And 
through  thy  knowledge  shall  thy  weak  brother  perish, /or  wliom  Christ 
died.''  "  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for  whom  Christ  died,'' 
"  False  teachers,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even 
denying  the  Lord  that  bougJU  them,  and  bring  upon  themselves  swift 
destruction."  So  also  in  the  case  of  the  apostates  mentioned  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  Of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  suppose  ye, 
shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God, 
and  hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctified, 
an  unholy  thing,  and  hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace  ?"  If 
any  dispute  should  here  arise  as  to  the  phrase,  "wherewith  he  was 
sanctified,"  reference  may  be  made  to  chap,  vi,  of  the  same  epistle, 
where  the  same  class  of  persons,  whose  doom  is  pronounced  to  be 
inevitable,  are  said  to  have  been  "  once  enlightened ;"  to  have  "  tasted 
of  the  heavenly  gift;"  to  have  been  "made  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;"  to  have  "  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,"  and  "  the  powers  of 
the  world  to  come  :"  all  which  expressions  show  that  they  were  placed 
on  the  same  ground  with  other  Christians  as  to  their  interest  in  the  new 
covenant, — a  point  to  which  we  shall  again  recur. 

2.  In  all  those  passages  which  make  it  the  duty  of  men  to  believe  the 
Gospel ;  and  place  them  under  guilt,  and  the  penalty  of  death,  for 
rejecting  it.  "  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life  :  and 
he  that  beheveth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  him."  "  But  these  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing  ye  might  have 
hfe  through  his  name."  "  He  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already, 
because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only -begotten  Son  of 
God."  "  And  he  said  unto  them.  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved ;  but  he  ihat  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned."  "  How  shall 
we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation  ?"  "  The  Lord  Jesus  shall 
be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaming  fire,  taking 
vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the  Gospel 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  plain  argument  from  all  such  passages 
is,  that  the  Gospel  is  commanded  to  be  preached  to  all  men ;  that  it  is 
preached  to  them  that  they  may  beheve  in  Christ,  its  Author ;  that  this 
faith  is  required  of  them,  in  order  to  their  salvation, — "  that  believing  ye 
may  have  life  through  his  name  ;"  that  they  have  power  thus  to  believe 
to  their  salvation ;  (from  whatever  source,  or  by  whatever  means  this 
power  is  derived  to  them,  need  not  now  be  examined :  it  is  plainly  sup- 
posed ;  for  not  to  believe,  is  reckoned  to  them  as  a  capital  crime,  for 
which  they  are  condemned  already,  and  reserved  to  final  condemnation ;) 

2 


288  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  that  having  power  to  believe,  they  have  the  power  to  obtain  salva- 
tion, which,  as  it  can  be  bestowed  only  through  the  merits  of  Christ's 
sacrifice,  proves  that  it  extends  to  them.  The  same  conclusion,  also, 
follows  from  the  nature  of  that  faith,  which  is  required  by  the  Gospel, 
in  order  to  salvation.  This,  we  have  already  seen,  is  not  mere  assent 
to  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  sacrificial  death,  but  personal  trust  in  it  as 
our  atonement ;  which  those,  surely,  could  not  be  required  by  a  God  of 
truth  to  exercise,  if  that  atonement  did  not  embrace  them.  Nor  could 
they  be  guilty  for  refusing  to  trust  in  that  which  was  never  intended  to 
be  the  object  of  their  trust ;  for  if  God  so  designed  to  exclude  them 
from  Christ,  he  could  not  command  ihem  to  trust  in  Christ ;  and  if  they 
are  not  commanded  thus  to  trust  in  Christ,  they  do  not  violate  any  com- 
mand by  not  believing  ;  and,  in  this  respect,  are  innocent. 

3.  In  all  those  passages  in  which  men's  failure  to  obtain  salvation  is 
placed  to  the  account  of  their  own  opposing  wills,  and  made  wholly  their 
own  fault.  "  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together, 
even  as  a  hen  galhereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ije  would 
not!"  "  And  ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  may  have  life."  "  Bring- 
ing upon  themselves  swift  destruction."  "  Whosoever  will,  let  him  take 
of  the  water  of  life  freely."  It  is  useless  here  to  multiply  quotations, 
since  the  New  Testament  so  constantly  exhorts  men  to  come  to  Christ, 
reproves  them  for  neglect,  and  threatens  them  with  the  penal  conse- 
quences of  their  own  folly ;  thus  uniformly  placing  the  bar  to  their  sal- 
vation, just  where  Christ  places  it,  in  his  parable  of  the  supper,  in  the 
perverseness  of  those,  who  having  been  bidden  to  the  feast,  would  not 
come.  From  these  premises,  then,  it  follows,  that  since  the  Scriptures 
always  attribute  the  ruin  of  men's  souls  to  their  own  will,  and  not  to  the 
will  of  God  ;  we  ought  to  seek  for  no  other  cause  of  their  condemna- 
tion. We  can  know  nothing  on  this  subject  but  what  God  has  revealed. 
He  has  declared  that  it  is  not  his  will  that  men  should  perish :  on  the 
contrary,  "  He  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved ;"  and  therefore  commands 
us  to  pray  for  "  all  men  ;"  he  has  declared,  that  the  reason  they  are  not 
saved,  is  not  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  them,  but  that  they  will  not  come 
to  him  for  the  "  life"  which  he  died  to  procure  for  •'  the  world ;"  and 
it  must  therefore  be  concluded,  that  the  sole  bar  to  the  salvation  of  all 
who  are  lost  is  in  themselves,  and  not  in  any  such  limitation  of  Christ's 
redemption,  as  supposes  that  they  were  not  comprehended  in  its  efficacy 
and  intention. 

It  will  now  be  necessary  for  us  to  consider  what  those  who  have 
adopted  a  different  opinion  have  to  urge  against  these  plain  and  literal 
declarations  of  Scripture.  It  is  their  burthen,  that  they  are  compelled 
to  explain  these  passages  in  a  more  limited  and  qualified  sense,  than  the 
letter  of  them  and  its  obvious  meaning  teaches :  and  that  they  must  do 
this  by  inference  merely  ;  for  it  is  not  even  pretended  that  there  is  any 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  289 

text  whatever  to  be  adduced,  which  declares  as  literally,  that  Christ  did 
not  die  for  the  salvation  of  all,  as  those  which  declare  that  he  did  so  die. 
We  have  no  passages,  therefore,  to  examine,  which,  in  their  clear 
literal  meaning,  stand  opposed  to  those  which  we  have  quoted,  so  as  to 
present  apparent  contradictions  which  require  to  be  reconciled  by  con- 
cession on  one  side  or  the  other.  This  is  at  least,  prima  facie,  strongly 
in  favour  of  those  who  hold  that,  in  the  same  sense,  and  with  the  same 
design,  "  Jesus  Christ  tasted  death  for  every  man." 

To  our  first  class  of  texts  it  is  objected,  that  the  terms  "  all  ?nen,^^  and 
"  the  world,^^  are  sometimes  used  in  Scripture  in  a  limited  sense. 

This  may  be  granted,  without  injury  to  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
texts  in  question.  But  though  in  Scripture,  as  in  common  language,  aZZ, 
and  every,  and  such  universals,  are  occasionally  used  with  hmitation 
when  the  connection  prevents  any  misunderstanding  ;  yet  they  are, 
nevertheless,  strictly  universal  terms,  and  are  most  frequently  used  as 
such.  The  true  question  is,  whether,  in  the  places  above  cited,  they  can 
be  understood  except  in  the  largest  sense ;  whether  "  all  men,"  and 
"  the  world,"  can  be  interpreted  of  the  elect  only,  that  is  of  some  men 
of  all  countries. 

We  may  very  confidently  deny  this, — 

1.  Because  the  universal  sense  of  the  terms,  "all,"  and  "all  men," 
and  "  every  man,"  is  confirmed,  either  by  the  context  of  the  passages 
in  which  they  occur,  or  by  other  scriptures.  When  Isaiah  says,  "  All 
we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the 
iniquity  of  us  all ;"  he  affirms  that  the  iniquity  of  all  those  who  have 
gone  astray,  was  laid  on  Christ.  When  St.  Paul  says,  "  We  thus  judge, 
that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead ;"  he  argues  the  universality 
of  spiritual  death,  from  the  universality  of  the  means  adopted  for  raising 
men  to  spiritual  life  :  a  plain  proof  that  it  was  received  as  an  undisputed 
principle  in  the  primitive  Church,  that  Christ's  dying  for  all  men  was  to 
be  taken  in  its  utmost  latitude,  or  it  could  not  have  been  made  the  basis 
of  the  argument.  When  the  same  apostle  calls  Christ  the  "  Saviour  of  all 
men,  and  especially  of  those  that  believe,"  he  manifestly  includes  both 
believers  and  unbehevers,  that  is,  all  mankind,  in  the  term  "  all  men ;" 
and  declares,  that  Christ  is  their  Saviour,  though  the  full  benefits  of  his 
salvation  are  received  through  faith  only  by  them  that  believe.  When 
again  he  declares  that,  "  As  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free 
gift  came  upon  all  men,  (sig,)  in  order  to  justification  of  life  ;"  the  force 
of  the  comparison  is  lost  if  the  term  "  all  men,"  is  not  taken  in  its  full 
extent ;  for  the  apostle  is  thus  made  to  say,  as  by  the  offence  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one, 
the  free  gifl  came  upon  a  few  men.  Nor  can  it  be  objected  that  the 
apostle  uses  the  terms,  "  manv,"  and  "  all  men,"  indiscriminately  in  this 
Vol.  II.  '       19 


290  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

chapter ;  for  there  is  in  this  no  contradiction,  and  the  objectioii  is  in  our 
favour.  All  men  are  many,  though  many  are  not  in  every  case  all. 
But  -the  term,  "  many,"  is  taken  by  him  in  the  sense  of  all,  as  appears 
from  the  following  parallels  :  "  death  passed  upon  all  men  ;"  "  many  be 
dead ;"  "  the  gift  by  grace  hath  abounded  unto  many ;"  "  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men.^'  "By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
(constituted)  sinners,"  made  liable  to  death ;  "  so  by  the  obedience  of 
one  shall  many  be  made  (constituted)  righteous."  On  the  last  passage 
we  may  observe  that  "  many,"  or  "  the  many,"  must  mean  all  men  in 
the  first  clause ;  nor  is  it  to  be  restricted  in  the  second,  as  though  by 
being  "  made  righteous,"  actual,  personal  justification  were  to  be  under- 
stood ;  for  the  apostle  is  not  speaking  of  believers  individually,  but  of 
mankind  collectively,  and  the  opposite  conditions  in  which  the  race  itself 
is  placed  by  the  offence  of  Adam  and  the  obedience  of  Christ  in  all  its 
generations. 

It  is  equally  impracticable  to  restrict  the  phrases,  "  the  world,"  "  the 
whole  world,"  and  to  paraphrase  them  the  "  world  of  the  elect :"  and  yet 
there  is  no  other  alternative  ;  for  either  "  the  whole  world"  means  those 
elected  out  of  it ;  or  else  Christ  died  in  an  equal  sense  for  every  man. 
"  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,"  &c. 
Here,  if  the  world  mean  not  the  elect  only,  but  every  man,  then  every 
man  was  "  so  loved"  by  God,  that  he  gave  his  own  Son  for  his  redemp- 
tion. To  say  that  the  world,  in  a  few  places,  means  the  Roman  empire, 
and  in  others  Judea,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose,  unless  it  were  meant  to 
affirm,  that  the  elect  were  the  people  of  Judea,  or  those  of  the  Roman 
empire  only.  It  proves,  it  is  true,  a  hyperbolical  use  of  the  term  in  both 
instances  ;  but  this  cannot  be  urged  in  the  case  before  us :  for, — 

1.  The  elect  are  never  called  "the  world"  in  Scripture  ;  but  are  dis- 
tinguished from  it.  "  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world ;  therefore 
the  world  hateth  you." 

2.  The  common  division  of  mankind,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  only 
into  two  parts  ;  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  "  the  world."  "  If  ye  were 
of  the  world,  the  world  would  love  its  own."  "Ye  are  not  of  the  world, 
even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world."  "  We  know  that  we  are  of  God,  and  the 
whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness." 

3.  When  the  redemption  of  Christ  is  spoken  of,  it  often  includes 
both  those  who  had  been  chosen  out  of  the  world,  and  those  who  re- 
mained still  of  the  world.  "^And  you  hath  he  reconciled,"  say  the  apos- 
tles to  those  that  had  already  believed  ;  and  as  to  the  rest,  "  God  was  in 
Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses 
unto  them ;  and  hath  committed  to  us  the  word  of  reconciliation," 
plainly  that  they  might  beseech  this  "  world"  to  be  reconciled  to  God : 
so  that  both  believers  and  unbelievers  were  interested  in  the  reconciling 
ministry,  and  the  work  of  Christ.     "  And  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    IJVSTITUTES.  291 

sins,  and  n6t  for  ours  only ;  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;" 
words  cannot  make  the  case  plainer  than  these,  since  this  same  writer, 
in  the  same  epistle,  makes  it  evident  how  he  uses  the  term  "  world," 
when  he  affirms  that  "  the  world  lieth  in  wickedness,"  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  those  who  knew  that  they  were  "  of  God." 

4.  In  the  general  commission  before  quoted,  the  expression  "  world" 
is  connected  with  universal  terms  which  carry  it  forth  into  its  utmost 
latitude  of  meaning.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel 
(the  good  news)  to  every  creature  ;"  and  this  too  in  order  to  his  beheviiig 
it,  that  he  may  be  saved  ;  "he  that  believeth  shall  be  saved;  and  he 
that  believeth  not  (this  good  news  preached  to  him  that  he  might  be 
saved)  shall  be  damned," 

5.  All  this  is  confirmed  from  the  gross  absurdity  of  this  restricted 
interpretation  when  applied  to  several  of  the  foregoing  passages.  "  For 
God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish."  Now,  if  the  world  here  means 
the  elect  world,  or  the  elect  not  yet  called  out  of  it,  then  it  is  affirmed, 
that  "  whosoever"  of  this  elect  body,  believeth  shall  not  perish  ;  which 
plainly  imphes,  that  some  of  the  elect  might  not  believe,  and  therefore 
perish,  contrary  to  their  doctrine.  This  absurd  consequence  is  still 
clearer  from  the  verses  which  immediately  follow.  John  iii,  17, 18,  "  For 
God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world,  to  condemn  the  world  ;  but  that  the 
world  through  him  might  be  saved.  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not 
condemned  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already."  Now 
here  we  must  take  the  term  "  world,"  either  extensively  for  all  mankind 
or  limitedly  for  the  elect.  If  the  former,  then  all  men  "  through  him 
may  be  saved,"  but  only  through  faith  :  he  therefore,  of  this  world  that 
believeth  may  be  saved  ;  but  he  of  this  world  that  believeth  not  is  con- 
demned already."  The  sense  is  here  plain  and  consistent ;  but  if,  oti  the 
other  hand,  we  take  "  the  world"  to  mean  the  elect  only,  then  he  of  this 
elect  world  that  believeth  may  be  saved,  and  he  of  the  elect  world  that 
"  believeth  not  is  condemned  ;"  so  that  the  restricted  interpretation  ne. 
cessarily  supposes,  that  elect  persons  may  remain  in  unbelief,  and  be  lost. 
The  same  absurdity  will  follow  from  a  like  interpretation  of  the  general 
commission.  Either  "  all  the  world"  and  "  every  creature,"  mean  every 
man,  or  the  elect  only.  If  the  former,  it  follows,  that  he  of  this  "  world," 
any  individual  among  those  included  in  the  phrase,  "  every  creature," 
who  feeheves,  "  shall  be  saved,"  or,  not  believing,  "  shall  be  damned :" 
if  the  latter,  then  he  of  the  elect,  any  individual  of  the  elect,  who  be- 
lieves,  "  shall  be  saved,"  and  any  individual  of  the  elect  who  believes 
not,  "  shall  be  damned."  Similar  absurdities  might  be  brought  out  from 
other  passages ;  but  if  these  are  candidly  weighed,  it  will  abundantly 
appear,  that  texts  so  plain  and  explicit  cannot  be  turned  into  such 
consequences  by  any  true  method  of  interpretation,  and  that  they  must, 


292  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

therefore,  be  taken  in  their  obvious  sense,  which  unequivocally  expresses 
the  universality  of  the  atonement. 

It  has  been  urged,  indeed,  that  our  Lord  himself  says,  John  xvii,  9, 
"  I  pray  for  them :  I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou 
hast  given  me."  But  will  they  here  interpret  "  the  world"  to  be  the 
world  of  the  elect  ?  if  so,  they  cut  even  them  off  from  the  prayers  of 
Christ.  But  if  by  "  the  world"  they  would  have  us  understand  the 
world  of  the  non-elect,  then  they  will  find  that  all  the  prayers  which 
our  Lord  puts  up  for  those  whom  "  the  Father  hath  given  him,"  had  this 
end,  "  that  they"  the  non-elect  "  '  world,'  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent 
me,"  verse  21 :  let  them  choose  either  side  of  the  alternative.  The 
meaning  of  this  passage  is,  however,  made  obvious  by  the  context. 
Christ,  in  the  former  part  of  his  intercession,  as  recorded  in  this  chapter, 
prays  exclusively,  not  for  his  Church  in  all  ages,  but  for  his  disciples 
then  present  with  him ;  as  appears  plain  from  verse  12,  "While  I  was 
ioith  them  in  the  world,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name  :"  but  he  was  only  with 
his  first  disciples,  and  for  them  he  exclusively  prays  in  the  first  instance  ; 
then,  in  verse  20,  he  prays  for  all  who,  in  future,  should  believe  on  him 
through  their  words ;  and  he  does  this  in  order  that  "  the  world  might 
believe."  Thus  "  the  world,"  in  its  largest  sense,  is  not  cut  off",  but  ex- 
pressly included  in  the  benefits  of  this  prayer. 

John  X,  15,  "I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep,"  is  also  adduced,  to 
prove  that  Christ  died  for  none  but  his  sheep.  But  the  consequence  will 
not  hold  ;  for  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  his  having  died  for  them 
that  beheve,  and  also  for  them  that  beheve  not.  Christ  is  said  to  be  "  the 
Saviour  of  all  men,  and  especially  of  them  that  beheve  ;"  two  proposi- 
tions which  the  apostle  held  to  be  perfectly  consistent.  The  very  con- 
text shows  that  Christ  laid  down  his  life  for  others  beside  those  whom 
in  that  passage,  he  calls  "  the  sheep."  The  sheep  here  intended,  as 
the  discourse  will  show,  were  those  of  the  Jewish  "  fold ;"  for  he  imme- 
diately adds,  "  other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold,"  clearly 
meaning  the  Gentiles :  "  them  must  I  bring."  He,  therefore,  laid  down 
his  life  for  them  also ;  for  the  sheep  in  the  fold,  who  "knew  his  voice, 
and  followed  him,"  and  for  them  out  of  the  fold,  who  still  needed  "  bring- 
ing in  ;"  even  for  "  the  lost,  whom  he  came  to  seek  and  save,"  which  is 
the  character  of  all  mankind :  "  all  we  hke  sheep  have  gone  astray ;" 
and  "  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all." 

A  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  first  two  classes  of  texts  we  have 
quoted  above,  may  then  be  affirmed  directly  and  expressly  to  contradict 
the  plainest  declarations  of  God's  own  word.  For,  it  is  not  true,  upon 
this  interpretation  that  God  loved  "  the  world,"  if  the  majority  he  loved 
not ;  nor  is  it  true  thai  Christ  was  not  "  sent  to  condemn  the  world,"  if 
he  was  sent  even  to  enhance  its  condemnation ;  nor  that  the  Gospel,  as 
the  Gospel,  can  be  preached  "  to  every  creature,"  if  to  the  majority  it  can- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  293 

not  be  preached  as  "  good  tidings  of  great  joy  to  all  people ;"  for  it  is  sad 
and  doleful  tidings,  if  the  greater  part  of  the  human  race  are  shut  out 
from  the  mercies  of  their  Creator.  If,  then,  in  this  interpretation  there  is 
so  palpable  a  contradiction  of  the  words  of  inspiration  itself,  the  system 
which  is  built  upon  it  cannot  be  sustained. 

As  to  the  texts  which  we  have  urged,  as  necessarily  implying  the 
unrestricted  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ,  the  usual  answers  to  those 
which  speak  of  Christ  having  died  for  them  that  perish,  may  be  briefly 
examined.  "  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for  whom  Christ  died," 
Rom.  xiv,  15.  Him,  says  Poole,  (Annotations,)  for  whom,  "  in  the 
judgment  of  charity,"  we  are  to  presume  Christ  died.  To  say  nothing 
of  the  danger  of  such  unlicensed  paraphrases,  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  it  is  obvious  that  this  exposition  entirely  annuls  the  motive  by 
which  the  apostle  enforces  his  exhortation.  Why  are  we  not  to  be  an 
occasion  of  sin  to  our  brother  ]  The  answer  is,  lest  we  "  destroy  him  ;" 
and,  in  the  parallel  place,  1  Cor.  viii,  11,  lest  "  he  perish."  But  what 
is  the  aggravation  of  the  offence  ?  Truly  that  "  Christ  died  for  him  ;" 
and  so  we  have  no  tenderness  for  a  soul  on  whom  Christ  had  so  much 
compassion  as  to  die  for  his  salvation.  Let  the  text  then  be  tried,  as 
paraphrased  by  Poole  and  other  Calvinists :  "  Destroy  not  him,  for 
whom,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,  it  may  be  concluded,  Christ  died ;" 
and  it  turns  the  motive  the  other  way.  For  if  I  admit  that  none  can  be 
destroyed  for  whom  Christ  died,  then,  in  proportion  to  the  charity  of  my 
judgment,  that  any  individual  is  of  this  number,  I  may  be  the  less  cau- 
tious of  ensnaring  his  conscience  in  indifferent  matters,  since  at  least, 
this  is  certain,  that  he  cannot  perish,  and  I  cannot  be  guilty  of  the 
aggravated  offence  of  destroying  him  who  was  an  object  of  the  compas- 
sion of  Christ.  Who  can  suppose  that  the  apostle  would  thus  counter- 
act his  own  design  ?  or  that  he  should  seriously  admonish  his  readers 
not  to  do  that  which  was  impossible,  if,  in  fact,  he  taught  them  that 
Christ  died  only  for  the  elect ;  and  that  they  for  whom  he  died,  could 
never  perish  ?  Another  commentator,  of  the  same  school,  explains  this 
as  a  caution  against  doing  that  which  had  a  "  tendency  to  the  ruin  of 
one  for  whom  Christ  died ;  not  that  it  implies,  that  the  weak  brother 
would  actually  perish."  (Rev.  T.  ScotCs  Notes.)  But  in  this  case,  also, 
as  it  is  assumed,  that  it  was  a  doctrine  taught  by  St.  Paul,  and  received 
by  the  Churches  to  whom  he  wrote,  that  the  elect  could  not  perish,  the 
motive  is  taken  away  upon  which  the  admonition  is  grounded.  For  if 
the  persons  to  whom  the  apostle  wrote,  knew  that  the  weak  brother,  for 
whom  Christ  died,  could  not  perish,  then  nothing  which  they  could  do 
had  any  "  tendency"  to  destroy  him.  It  might  injure  him,  disturb  his 
mind,  lead  him  into  sin,  destroy  his  comforts ;  all,  or  any  of  which, 
would  have  been  appropriate  motives  on  which  to  have  urged  the  cau- 
tion :  but  nothing  can  have  even  a  tendency  to  destroy  him  whose  sal* 

3 


294  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

vation  is  fixed  by  an  unalterable  decree.  Mr.  Scott  is,  however, 
eyidently  not  satisfied  with  his  own  interpretation ;  and  gives  a  painful 
example  of  the  influence  of  a  preconceived  system  in  commenting  upon 
Scripture,  by  charging  the  apostle  himself  with  careless  writing.  "  We 
may,  however,  observe,  that  the  apostles  did  not  write  in  that  exact,  sys- 
tematical  style  which  some  affect,  otherwise  they  would  scrupulously 
have  avoided  such  expressions,^^  This  is  rather  in  the  manner  of 
Priestley  and  Belsham,  than  that  of  an  orthodox  commentator ;  but  it 
does  homage  to  the  force  of  truth  by  turning  away  from  it,  and  by 
tacitly  acknowledging  that  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  Calvinistically 
interpreted.  The  same  commentators,  following,  as  they  do,  in  the 
train  of  the  Calvinistic  divines  in  general,  may  furnish,  also,  the  an- 
swer to  the  argument,  from  2  Peter  ii,  1,  "Denying  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  and  bringing  upon  themselves  swift  destruction."  Poole 
gives  us  three  interpretations :  the  first  is,  "  the  Lord  that  bought  Israel 
out  of  Egypt ;"  as  though  St.  Peter  could  be  speaking  of  the  Mosaic, 
and  not  of  the  Christian  redemption ;  and  as  though  the  Judaizing 
teachers,  supposing  the  apostle  to  speak  of  them,  denied  the  God  of  the 
Jews,  when  it  was  their  object  to  set  up  his  religion  against  that  of 
Christ.  The  second  is,  that  "they  were  bought,"  or  redeemed,  by 
Christ,  from  temporal  death,  their  lives  having  been  spared  :  but  we  have 
no  such  doctrine  in  Scripture,  as  that  the  long  suffering  of  wicked  men, 
procured  by  Christ's  redemption,  is  unconnected  in  its  intent  with  their 
eternal  salvation.  The  barren  fig  tree  was  spared  at  the  intercession 
of  Christ,  that  means  might  be  taken  with  it,  to  make  it  fruitful ;  and 
in  this  same  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  he  teaches  us  to  "  account  the  long 
suffering  of  the  Lord  salvation  ;^^  meaning,  doubtless,  in  its  tendency  and 
intention.  To  this  we  may  add,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to 
warrant  this  notion  of  mere  temporal  redemption.  The  third  interpre- 
tation is,  "that  they  denied  the  Lord,  whom  they  professed  to  have 
bought  them."  This  also  is  gratuitous,  and  gives  a  very  different  sense 
froni  that  which  the  words  of  the  apostle  convey.  But  it  is  argued, 
that  the  offence  would  be  the  same  in  denying  Christ,  whether  he  really 
died  for  them,  or  that  they  had  professed  to  believe  he  died  for  them. 
Certainly  not.  Their  crime,  as  it  is  put  by  the  apostle,  is  not  the  deny- 
ing of  their  former  profession,  or  denying  Christ,  whom  they  for- 
naerly  professed  to  have  bought  them  ;  but  denying  Christ,  who  had 
actually  bought  them,  and  whom,  for  that  reason,  they  ought  never 
to  have  denied,  but  confessed  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives.  Farther, 
if  they  merely  denied  that  which  they  formerly  professed,  namely, 
that  Christ  had  bought  them,  and,  in  point  of  fact,  he  never  did  buy 
theip,  they  were  in  error  when  they  professed  to  believe  that  he  bought 
thenj^  and  spoke  the  truth  only  when  they  denied  it ;  and  if  it  be  said, 
that  they  knew  not  but  he  had  bought  them,  when  they  denied  him,  this 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  295 

might  be  a  reason  for  their  not  being  rewarded  for  renouncing  an  error, 
as  being  done  unwittingly ;  but  can  be  no  reason  for  their  being 
punished,  though  unwittingly  they  went  back  to  the  truth  of  the  case. — 
There  can  be  no  great  guilt  in  our  denying  Christ,  if  Christ  never 
died  for  us. 

Mr.  Scott  partly  adopts,  and  partly  rejects  Poole's  solution  of 
this  Scriptural  difficulty.  But  as  he  charged  St.  Paul  with  want  of 
exactness  in  writing  to  the  Romans,  so  also  St.  Peter,  in  the  passage 
before  us,  comes  in  for  his  share  of  the  same  censure.  "  It  was  not  the 
manner  of  the  sacred  writers,  to  express  themselves  with  that  systema- 
tic exactness,  which  many  now  affect."  The  question  is  not,  however, 
one  of  systematic  exactness  ;  but  of  common  intelligible  writing.  Mr. 
Scott's  observation  on  tliis  passage,  is,  "  that  Christ's  ransom  was  of 
infinite  sufficiencj'^ ;  and  the  proposal  of  it,  in  Scripture,  general ;  so 
that  men  are  addressed  according  to  their  profession  :  but  that  Christ 
only  intended  to  redeem  those,  whom  he  foresaw  would  eventually  be 
saved."  {Notes  on  2  Peter.)  On  this  we  may  remark,  1.  That  the  suf- 
ficiency of  Christ's  redemption  is  not  in  question ;  but  the  redemption 
itself  of  these  deniers  of  Christ :  he  is  called  "  the  Lord  that  bought 
them."  In  that  sufficiency,  too,  Mr.  Scott  affirms,  in  fact,  that  they 
had  no  interest ;  for  Christ  did  not  "  intend  to  redeem  them  ;"  on  this 
showing,  therefore,  the  Lord  did  not  "  buy  them,"  which  contradicts  the 
apostle.  2.  That  the  "  proposal  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption 
is  general;"  and  that  men  are  addressed,  accordingly,  as  those  who 
are  interested  in  it,  we  grant,  and  feel  how  well  this  accords  with  the 
doctrine  of  general  redemption ;  but  the  difficulty  Ues  with  those  who 
hold  the  Umitation  of  Christ's  redemption  to  the  elect  only,  to  explain,  not 
merely  how  it  is  that  men  are  addressed  generally ;  but  how  the  sins 
of  those  who  perish,  can  be  aggravated  by  the  circumstance  of  Christ's 
having  bought  them,  if  he  did  not  buy  them  ;  and  how  they  can  be  pun- 
ished for  rejecting  him,  if  they  could  never  receive  him,  so  as  to  be 
saved  by  him.  This  aggravation  of  their  offence,  by  the  circumstance 
of  Christ  having  bought  them,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  text,  of  the  force  of 
which  the  above  interpretations  are  manifest  evasions. 

We  come  now  to  the  case  of  the  apostates,  mentioned  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  vi,  4-8,  and  x,  26-31.  With  respect  to  these  pas. 
sages,  it  is  agreed  that  they  speak  of  the  ultimate  and  eternal  condemn 
nation  and  rejection  of  the  persons  mentioned  in  them.  The  question 
then  is,  whether  Christ  died  for  them,  as  he  died  for  such  as  persevere? 
which  is  to  be  determined  by  another  question,  whether  they  were  ever 
true  believers,  and  had  received  saving  grace  ?  If  this  be  allowed,  the 
proposition  is  established,  that  Christ  died  for  them  that  perish ;  but  in 
order  to  arrest  this  conclusion,  all  Calvinistic  divines  agree  in  denying 
that  the  persons  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  and  against  whom  his  terrible 


296  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

denunciations  are  directed,  were  ever  true  believers,  or  capable  of  be- 
coming such  ;  and  here  again  we  have  another  pregnant  instance  of  the 
violence  done  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  word  of  God,  through  the 
influence  of  a  preconceived  system.     For, 

1.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  the  Hebrews,  to  whom  the  epistle  was 
addressed,  were,  in  the  main,  at  least,  true  believers  ;  and  that  the  pas- 
sages  in  question  were  written  to  preserve  them  from  apostasy ;  of 
which  the  rejection,  and  hopeless  punishment,  described  by  the  apostle, 
is  represented  as  the  consequence.  But  if  St.  Paul  had  taught  them, 
as  he  must  have  done,  if  Calvinism  be  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  that  they  never  could  so  fall  away,  and  so  perish,  this  was  no 
warning  at  all  to  them.  To  suppose  he  held  out  that  as  a  terror,  which 
he  knew  to  be  impossible,  and  had  taught  them  also  to  be  impossible,  is 
the  first  absurdity  which  the  Calvinistic  interpretation  involves. 

2.  It  wiU  not  be  denied,  that  he  speaks  of  these  wretched  apostates, 
as  deterring  examples  to  the  true  believers  among  the  Hebrews ;  but  as 
such  apostates  never  were  believers,  and  were  not  even  rendered  capa- 
ble, by  the  grace  of  God,  of  becoming  such,  they  could  not  be  admoni- 
tory examples.  To  assume  that  the  apostle,  for  the  sake  of  argument 
and  admonition,  supposes  believers  to  be  in  the  same  circumstances  and 
case  as  those  who  never  were,  and  never  could  be  believers,  and  when 
he  had  instructed  them  that  their  cases  could  never  be  similar,  is  the 
second  absurdity. 

3.  The  apostates  in  question  are  represented,  by  the  apostle,  "  as 
falling  away"  from  "repentance,"  and  from  Christ's  "sacrifice  for 
sins."  The  advocates  of  the  system  of  partial  redemption,  affirm,  that 
they  fell  away  only  from  their  profession  of  repentance  and  doctrinal 
belief  of  Christ's  sacrifice  for  sins,  in  which  they  never  had,  and  never 
could  have,  any  interest.  Yet  the  apostle  places  the  hopelessness  of 
their  state  on  the  impossibility  of  "  renewing  them  again  to  repent- 
ance :"  which  proves  that  he  considered  their  first  repentance  genuine 
and  evangelical ;  because  the  absence  of  such  a  repentance  as  they 
had  at  first,  is  given  as  the  reason  of  the  hopelessness  of  their  condi- 
tion. He  moreover  heightens  the  case,  by  alleging,  that  there  remained 
"no  more  sacrifice  for  sins  ;"  which  as  plainly  proves  that,  before  their 
apostasy,  there  was  a  sacrifice  for  their  sins,  and  that  they  had  only  cut 
themeslves  off"  from  its  benefits  by  "  wilfully"  renouncing  it ;  in  other 
words,  that  Christ  died  for  them,  and  that  they  had  placed  themselves 
out  of  the  reach  of  the  benefit  of  his  death,  by  this  one  act  of  aggra- 
vated apostasy.  The  contrast  lies  between  a  hopeful  and  a  hopeless 
case.  Theirs  was  once  a  hopeful  case,  because  they  had  "  repented," 
and  because  there  was  then  a  "sacrifice  for  sins;"  afterward  it 
became  hopeless,  because  it  was  "  impossible  to  renew  them  again  unto 
repentance,"  and  the  sacrifice  for  sin  no  more  remained  for  them ;  they 

2 


« 


;    SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  297 

\  had  not  only  renounced  their  profession  of  it ;  but  had  renounced  the 
i  sacrifice  itself,  by  renouncing  Christianity.      Now,  so  to  interpret  the 

I  apostle,  as  to  make  him  describe  the  awful  condition  of  apostates,  as  a 
i   "  falling  away"  into  a  state  of  hopelessness,  when,  if  Calvinism  be  the 

II  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  their  case  was  never  really  hopeful,  but 
■  was  as  hopeless,  as  to  their  eternal  salvation,  before  as  after  their  apos- 
tasy, is  the  third  absurdity, 

4.  But  it  is  plain  that  theirs  had  been  a  state  of  actual  salvation 
which  could  only  result  from  their  having  had  an  interest  in  the  death 
of  Christ.  The  proof  of  this  lies  in  what  the  apostle  aihrms  of  the 
previous  state  of  those  who  had  finally  apostatized,  or  might  so  aposta- 
tize. They  were  "  enlightened ;"  this,  the  whole  train  of  Calvinistic 
commentators  tell  us,  means  a  mere  speculative  reception  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel ;  they  had  "  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,"  and  of  "the  good 
word  of  God  ;"  that  is,  say  Poole  and  others,  "  they  tasted,  not  digested  ; 
they  had  superficial  relishes  of  joy  and  peace,"  and  are  to  be  compared 
"  to  the  stony.ground  hearers,  who  received  the  word  with  joy."  "  And 
were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  that  is,  say  some  commenta- 
tors of  this  class,  in  his  operations,  "  trying  how  far  a  natural  man  may 
be  raised,  and  not  have  his  nature  changed :"  (Poole  in  loc. ;)  others, 
"  by  the  communication  of  miraculous  powers."  They  had  "  tasted  of 
the  powers  of  the  world  to  come  ;"  that  is,  they  had  felt  the  powerful 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  but  as  all  reprobates  may  feel  them,  sometimes 
powerfully  convincing  their  judgment,  at  others  troubhng  their  con- 
sciences. *•  All  these  things,"  says  Scott,  (Notes,)  "  often  take  place  in 
the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men,  who  yet  continue  unregenerate." 
These  interpretations  are  undoubtedly  forced  upon  these  authors  by  the 
system  they  have  adopted ;  but  it  unfortunately  happens  for  them,  that 
the  apostle  uses  no  term  less  strong  in  describing  the  religious  experi- 
ence of  these  apostates  than  he  does  in  speaking  of  that  of  true  behevers. 
They  were  "  enlightened,^^  is  said  of  these  apostates,  "  the  eyes  of  your 
understanding  being  enlightened,^^  is  said  of  the  Ephesians  ;  and  "  being 
turned  from  darkness  to  light"  is  the  characteristic  of  all  believers.  The 
apostates  "  tasted  the  heavenly  gift ;"  this,  too,  is  affirmed  of  true  be- 
lievers, "much  more  they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the 
gift  of  righteousness,  shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  v, 
17.  To  be  made  "  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  also  the  common 
distinctive  character  of  all  true  Christians.  "  If  any  man  have  not  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his  ;"  "  but  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in 
the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you."  "  To  taste  the 
heavenly  gift"  and  "  the  good  word  of  God,"  is  also  made  the  mark  of 
true  Christianity :  "if  so  be  ye  have  tdsted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious." 
Finally,  "  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come  ;"  that  is,  of  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation, or  the  power  of  the  Gospel,  stand  in  precisely  the  same  case. 

2 


298  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

This  Gospel  is  the  "poioer  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieveth."  Since,  then,  the  apostle  expresses  the  prior  experience  of 
these  apostates,  by  the  sanoe  terms  and  phrases  as  those  by  which  he 
designates  the  work  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  those  whose  Christianity  is, 
by  all,  acknowledged  to  be  genuine,  where  is  the  authority  on  which 
these  commentators  make  him  describe,  not  a  saving  work  in  the  hearts 
of  these  apostates,  during  the  time  they  held  fast  their  profession,  but  a 
simulated  one  ?  They  have  clearly  no  authority  for  this  at  all ;  and  their 
comments  arise  not  out  of  the  argument  of  3t.  Paul,  nor  out  of  his  terms 
or  phrases,  or  the  connection  of  these  passages  with  the  rest  of  the  dis. 
course  ;  but  out  of  their  own  theological  system  alone  ;  in  other  words, 
out  of  a  mere  human  opinion  which  supplies  a  meaning  to  the  apostle, 
of  which  he  gives  not  the  most  distant  intimation.  To  make  the  apostle 
describe  the  falling  avray  from  a  mere  profession  unaccompanied  with 
a  state  of  grace,  by  terms  which  he  is  constantly  using  to  describe  and 
characterize  a  state  of  grace,  is  the  fourth  absurdity. 

We  mark,  also,  two  other  absurdities.  The  interpretations  above 
given  are  below  the  force  of  the  terms  employed ;  and  they  are  above 
the  character  of  reprobates. 

They  are  below  the  force  of  the  terms  employed.  To  "  taste  the 
heavenly  gift,"  is  not  a  mere  intellectual  or  sentimental  approval  of  it ; 
for  this  heavenly  gift  is  distinguished  both  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
from  the  word  of  God,  mentioned  afterward  ;  which  leaves  us  no  choice 
but  to  interpret  it  of  Christ :  and  then  to  taste  of  Christ,  is  to  receive  his 
grace  and  mercy ;  "  if  so  be  ye  have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious  " 
Thus  the  Greek  fathers,  and  many  later  divines,  understand  it  of  the 
remission  of  sins ;  which  interpretation  is  greatly  confirmed  by  Rom.  v, 
where  " the  gift,"  " the  free  gift,''^  and  " the  gift  by  grace"  are  used 
both  for  the  means  of  our  justification,  and  for  justification  itself.  To 
"  taste  the  heavenly  gift,"  then,  is,  in  this  sense,  so  to  taste  that  the  Lord 
is  gracious  as  to  receive  the  remission  of  sins.  To  be  made  "  partakers 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  follows  this  iti  the  usual  order  of  describing  the 
work  of  God  in  the  heart.  It  is  the  fruit  of  faith,  the  Spirit  of  adoption 
and  sanctification — the  Spirit  in  his  comforting  and  renewing  influences 
following  our  justification.  To  restrain  this  participation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  the  endowment  of  miraculous  powers,  requires  it  to  be  pre- 
viously established,  either,  1.  That  all  professing  Christians,  in  that  age, 
were  thus  endowed  with  miraculous  powers,  of  which  there  is  no  proof; 
or,  2.  That  only  those  who  were  thus  endowed  with  miraculous  gifts 
were  capable  of  this  aggravated  apostasy ;  and  then  the  apostle's  warn- 
ing would  not  be  a  general  one,  even  to  the  Christians  of  the  apostolic 
age,  nor  even  to  all  the  believing  Hebrews,  which  it  manifestly  is.  On 
the  other  hand,  since  all  true  believers,  in  the  sense  of  the  apostle,  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  comforting  and  renovating  influences,  the 
2 


m 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  299 

meaning  of  the  phrase  becomes  obvious,  and  it  lays  down  the  proper 
ground  for  a  general  admonition.  Again  ;  "  to  taste  the  good  word  of 
God,"  is  still  an  advance  in  the  process  of  a  genuine  experience.  It  is 
tasting  the  good  word,  that  is,  the  goodness  of  the  word  in  a  course  of 
experience  and  practice  ;  having  personal  proof  of  its  goodness  and 
adaptation  to  man's  state  in  the  world  :  for  to  argue  from  the  term 
"to5^e,"  as  though  something  superficial  and  transitory  only  were  meant, 
is  as  absurd  as  to  argue  from  the  threat  of  Christ  that  those  who  refused 
the  invitation  of  his  servants  should  not  "  taste"  of  his  supper,  that  he 
only  excluded  them  from  a  superficial  and  transient  gustation  of  his  sal- 
vation here  and  hereafter ;  or  that,  when  the  psalmist  calls  upon  us  to 
"  taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good,"  he  excludes  a  full,  and  rich,  and 
permanent  experience  of  the  Divine  goodness.  Finally,  if  by  the 
"  powers  of  the  world  to  come,"  it  could  be  proved  that  the  apostle 
meant  the  miraculous  evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  it  would  not 
follow  that  he  supposes  the  persons  spoken  of  to  be  endowed  with  mira- 
culous powers ;  but  that  to  taste  these  powers,  was  rather  to  experience 
the  abundant  blessings  of  a  religion  thus  confirmed  and  demonstrated  by 
signs  and  wonders  and  divers  miracles,  according  to  what  he  urges  in 
chap,  ii,  4,  of  the  same  epistle.  The  phrase,  however,  is  probably  a 
still  farther  advance  upon  the  former,  and  signifies  a  personal  experience 
of  the  mighty  energy  and  saving  power  of  the  Gospel.  Thus  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Calvinists  has  the  absurdity  of  making  the  apostle  speak 
little  things  in  great  words,  and  of  using  unmeaning  tautologies.  To 
"  partake  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  is,  according  to  them,  to  have  the  gift  of 
miracles,  and  to  taste  "  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come"  is  to  have  the 
gift  of  miracles.  To  taste  the  "  heavenly  gift,"  is  to  have  a  superficial 
relish  of  Gospel  doctrine,  and  "  to  taste  the  good  word  of  God,"  is  also 
to  have  a  superficial  relish  of  Gospel  doctrine  :  but  how,  then,  are  we  to 
take  the  term  "  taste,"  when  the  apostle  speaks  of  tasting  '^  the  powers 
of  the  world  to  come  ?"  According  to  these  comments,  this  can  only 
mean  that  they  had  a  superficial  taste  of  the  power  of  working  miracles ! 
But  as  these  interpretations  are  beJow  the  force  of  the  terms,  so  they 
are  above  the  capacity  of  the  reprobate.  ^'  They  had,  moreover,"  says 
Scott,  "  tasted  of  the  good  word  of  God,  and  their  connections,  impres. 
sions,  and  transient  aflfections,  made  them  sensible  that  it  was  a  good 
word,  and  that  it  was  for  their  good  to  attend  to  it ;  and  their  purposes 
of  doing  so  had  produced  such  hopes  and  joys  as  have  been  described 
in  the  case  of  the  stony-ground  hearers,  Matt,  xiii,  21,  22."  That  Mr. 
Scott  had  no  right  apprehension  of  the  class  of  persons  intended  by  those 
who  received  the  good  seed  upon  stony  ground,  might  easily  be  proved ; 
but  this  is  beside  our  present  purpose.  We  find  in  the  words  quoted 
above,  (and  we  refer  to  Mr.  Scott  rather  than  to  the  older  divines  of  the 
same  school,  because  it  is  often  said  that  Calvinism  is  now  modified  and 

2 


300  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

improved,)  "  convictions,"  "  impressions  of  the  goodness  of  the  word," 
and  purposes  of  attending  to  it,  ascribed  to  the  non-elect ;  persons  to 
whose  salvation  this  bar  is  placed,  that,  according  to  this  commentator, 
and  all  others  who  adopt  the  same  system,  Christ  never  "  intentionally" 
died  for  them.  We  ask,  then,  are  these  "convictions,  impressions," 
and  "  purposes,"  from  the  grace  of  God  working  in  man,  or  from  the 
natural  man  wholly  unassisted  by  the  grace  of  God  ?  If  the  latter,  then 
what  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  corruption  of  human  nature, 
which  they  profess  to  hold,  and  that  so  strenuously  ?  "  In  me,  that  is,  in 
my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing."  By  the  flesh,  the  apostle  means, 
doubtless,  his  natural  and  unassisted  state.  Yet  how  many  "good 
things"  are  ascribed,  by  Mr.  Scqtt,  to  the  very  reprobate  ?  "  Conviction 
of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel"  was  doubtless  "  good,"  and  showed,  in  that 
day  especially,  when  the  prejudices  of  education  had  not  yet  come  in  to 
the  aid  of  truth,  an  honest  spirit  of  inquiry,  and  a  docile  mind.  "  Im- 
pressions" are  still  better,  as  they  argue  affection  to  truth  which  the 
natural  man,  as  such,  hates ;  and  these  are  improved  into  an  acknow- 
ledgment "  of  the  goodness  of  the  word,"  though  it  is  a  reproving  word, 
and  a  doctrine  of  holiness,  and  consequently  of  restraint.  To  this  the 
merely  "  carnal  mind,"  which  St.  Paul  declares  to  be  "  enmity  against 
God,"  is  here  allowed  not  only  to  assent,  but  also  to  perceive  with  some 
taste  and  approving  relish.  "  Purposes  of  attending  to  this  good  word," 
are  also  admitted,  which  is  a  still  farther  advance,  and  must  by  all  be 
acknowledged  to  be  *'  good,"  as  they  are  the  very  basis  of  real  religious 
attainment.  Yet  if  all  these,  which,  in  the  judgment  of  eveiy  spiritual 
man  would  be  considered  as  placing  such  persons  in  a  very  hopeful 
state,  and  would  give  joy  to  angels,  unless  they  were  admitted  to  the 
secret  of  reprobation,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  nature  ;  then  the  carnal  mind 
is  not  absolutely  and  in  all  cases  "  enmity  against  God ;"  in  our  "  flesh 
some  good  thing  may  dwell;"  and  we  are  not  by  nature  "dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins." 

Let  us  then  suppose,  since  this  position  cannot  be  maintained  in  de- 
fiance of  the  Scriptures,  that  these  are  the  effects  of  the  grace  of  God, 
and  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  man  ;  to  what  end  is  that  grace 
exerted  ?  Is  it  that  it  may  lead  to  salvation  ?  This  is  denied,  and  con- 
sistently so ;  for  can  such  convictions,  and  desires,  and  purposes,  lead 
to  true  repentance,  when  Christ  gives  true  repentance  to  none  but  to  the 
elect  ?  Nor  can  they  lead  to  pardon,  because  Christ  has  not  intentionally 
"  died  for  the  persons  in  question."  Is  the  end,  then,  as  Poole,  or  rather 
his  continuator  states  it,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  "  try  how  far  a  natural 
man  may  be  raised"  without  ceasing  to  be  so  ?  If  that  is  affirmed,  for 
whose  sake  is  the  experiment  tried  ?  Not  surely  for  the  sake  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whose  omniscience  needs  no  instruction  by  experiment : 
not  for  ours ;  for  this,  instead  of  being  edifying,  only  puzzles  and  con- 


^i^*TH 


SECOND.]  ^^  "THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  301 

founds  us,  for  who  can  tell  how  far  this  experiment  may  go,  and  how 
far  it  is  making  upon  himself?  This,  too,  is  so  very  unworthy  an  asper- 
sion upon  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  it  ought  to  make  sober  men  very  much 
suspect  the  system  which  requires  it.  Is  it  then,  finally,  as  some  have 
affirmed,  to  make  the  persons  more  guilty,  and  to  heighten  their  con- 
demnation ?  How  few  Calvinists,  in  the  present  day,  are  bold  enough  to 
affirm  this,  although  the  advocates  of  that  system  have  formerly  done  it; 
and  yet  this  is  the  only  practical  end  which  their  system  will  allow  to 
be  assigned  to  such  an  act  as  that  which,  by  a  strange  abuse  of  terms, 
is  called  the  operation  of  "  common  grace'^  in  the  hearts  of  the  repro- 
bate. In  no  other  practical  end  can  it  issue,  but  to  aggravate  their  guilt 
and  damnation,  as  the  old  divines  of  this  school  perceived  and  acknow- 
ledged. Either,  then,  their  interpretation  of  these  passages  affirms  a 
change  in  the  principles  and  feelings  of  the  persons  spoken  of  by  the 
apostle  in  this  epistle,  much  above  the  capacity  and  power  of  repro- 
bates, greatly  as  it  falls  below  the  real  import  of  the  terms  used ;  or 
else  those  who  advocate  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  are  bound  to  the 
revolting  conclusion,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  thus  works  in  them  only  to 
promote  and  deepen  their  destruction. 

To  that  class  of  texts,  which  make  it  the  duty  of  men  to  believe  the 
Gospel,  and  threaten  them  with  punishment  for  not  believing,  and  which 
we  adduced  to  prove,  by  necessary  implication,  that  Christ  died  for 
all  men,  it  has  been  replied,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to  believe  the 
Gospel,  whether  they  are  interested  in  the  death  of  Christ  or  not ;  and 
that  they  are  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment  for  not  believing  it. 
By  this  argument  it  is  conceived,  that  all  such  passages  are  made  con- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  of  the  limited  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

On  both  sides,  then,  it  is  granted,  that  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  all 
men  who  hear  the  Gospel  to  beheve  it,  and  that  the  violation  of  this 
duty  induces  condemnation ;  but  if  Christ  died  not  for  all  such  persons, 
we  think  it  is  plain,  that  it  cannot  be  their  duty  to  believe  the  Gospel ; 
and  if  this  can  be  established,  then  does  the  Scriptural  principle  of  the 
obligation  of  all  men  to  believe,  which  is  acknowledged  on  both  sides, 
refute  all  limitation  of  the  extent  of  Christ's  atonement. 

To  settle  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  be- 
hoving the  Gospel.  Some  writers  in  this  controversy  seem  to  take  it 
only  in  the  sense  of  giving  credit  to  the  Gospel  as  a  Divine  revelation ; 
and  not  for  accepting  and  trusting  in  it  in  order  to  salvation.  But  we 
have,  in  the  New  Testament,  no  such  division  of  the  obligation  of  be- 
hoving into  two  distinct  duties,  one  laid  upon  one  class  of  persons,  and 
the  other  upon  another  class.  So  far  from  this,  the  faith  which  the 
Gospel  requires  of  all,  is  trust  in  the  Gospel ; — "  repentance  toward 
God,  and  faith  (trust)  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Will  any  say,  that 
when  all  men  are  commanded  "  every  where  to  repent,"  two  kinds  of 

2 


302  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

repentance  are  intended,  one  ineffectual,  the  other  effectual ;  one  to 
death,  th«  other  to  life  ?  And  if  not,  will  he  contend  that  God  com- 
mands one  kind  of  faith  to  some,  a  faith  which  cannot  lead  to  salvation ; 
another  kind  of  faith,  which  does  lead  to  salvation  to  others?  that  he 
conmiands  a  dead  faith  to  the  reprobate,  a  hving  faith  to  the  elect  ?  For, 
according  to  the  intention  of  the  command,  such  must  be  the  duty ;  and 
if  it  is  the  duty  of  the  reprobate  to  believe  with  the  mere  faith  of  assent, 
which,  as  to  them,  is  dead,  then  no  more  was  ever  required  of  them,  in 
the  intention  of  God,  than  this  dead  faith.  But  if  men  will  affirm  this, 
they  must  show  us  such  a  restricted  and  modified  command  from  God  ; 
and  they  must  point  out,  in  the  commands  which  we  have  to  believe  in 
Christ,-  such  a  distinction  of  the  obligation  of  beUeving  into  a  higher  and 
lower  duty.  There  is  no  such  modified  command,  and  there  is  no  such 
distinction  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  faith  which  is  required  of  all  is 
that,  and  not  less  than  that,  whereof  cometh  salvation  ;  for  with  remis- 
sion of  sins  and  salvation  it  is  constantly  connected.  "  He  that  believ- 
eth  shall  be  saved."  "Whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  not  perish." 
"  That  behoving  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name."  "  To  him  give 
all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  The  faith,  then,  required  of  all, 
is  true  faith ;  true  faith  following  true  repentance,  the  trust  of  a  true 
penitent  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  offered  for  his  sins,  that  he  may 
be  forgiven,  and  received  into  the  family  of  God. 

If  this,  then,  be  the  faith  which  is  required  of  all  who  hear  the  Gos- 
pel, it  is  not,  and  cannot  be  the  duty,  of  those  to  believe  the  Gospel  in 
the  Scriptural  sense  of  believing,  for  whom  Christ  died  not.  1.  Be- 
cause it  is  impossible,  and  God  cannot  command  a  thing  impossible,  and 
then  punish  men  for  not  doing  it ;  for  this  contradicts  all  notions  of  jus- 
tice and  benevolence.  Nor  does  it  alter  the  case  whether  the  impossi- 
bility arises  from  a  positive  necessitating  decree,  or  from  withholding 
the  aid  necessary  to  enable  them  to  comply  with  the  command ;  such 
persons  as  those  for  whom  Christ  died  not,  never  had,  and  never  can 
have,  the  power  to  exercise  the  saving  faith  which  is  enjoined  upon  them  ; 
and  being  impossible  to  them,  it  never  could  be  the  subject  of  express 
command  and  obligation  as  to  them  ;  which  nevertheless  it  is.  2.  Be- 
cause, according  to  the  Calvinistic  opinion,  it  is  not  in  the  intention  of  God 
that  they  should  believe  and  be  saved :  what,  therefore,  he  never  intended, 
he  could  not  command  ;  and  yet  he  has  plainly  commanded  it.  3.  Be- 
cause what  all  are  bound  to  believe  or  trust  in,  is  true  :  but  it  is  false, 
according  to  this  system,  that  Christ  died  for  the  reprobate,  and  therefore 
they  are  not  bound  to  believe  or  trust  in  him,  though  they  are  both  com- 
manded to  believe,  and  threatened  with  condemnation  if  they  believe  not. 

Here,  then,  is  the  dilemma  into  which  all  must  fall,  who  deny  that  the 
necessary  inference  from  the  universal  obligation  to  believe  in  Christ,  is^ 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  303 

as  we  have  stated  it,  that  he  died  for  all*  If  they  deny  the  universality  of 
the  obligation  to  believe,  they  deny  plain  and  express  Scripture,  which  conpi- 
mands  all  men  to  believe ;  if  they  affirm  the  obligation  to  believe  to  be 
universal,  they  hold  that  men  are  bound  to  do  that  which  is  impossible ; 
that  the  Lawgiver  commands  them  to  do  what  he  never  intended  they 
should  do  ;  and  that  they  are  bound  to  believe  and  trust  in  what  is  not 
true,  namely,  that  Christ  died  for  them,  and  thus  to  lean  upon  a  broken 
reed,  and  to  trust  their  salvation  to  a  delusion. 

This  is  a  difficulty  which  the  theologians  of  this  school  have  felt. 
The  synod  of  Dort  says,  {Act.  Syn.  Dord,  part  1,  cap.  2,  art.  5,)  « It  is 
the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  that  whosoever  believes  in  Christ  crucified 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life ;.  which  promise,  together 
with  the  injwiction  of  repentance  and  faith,  ought  promiscuously  and 
without  distinction,  to  be  declared  and  published  to  all  men  and  people 
to  whom  God  in  his  good  pleasure  sends  the  Gospel."  But  as  some  of 
the  later  Calvinists  found  themselves  perplexed  with  this  statement,  they 
began  to  differ  from  the  synod ;  and,  allowing  that  Christ  died  for  all 
whom  he  commands  to  believe  in  him,  denied  that  God  had  commanded 
all  men  so  to  believe.  (Vide  Womack^s  Arcana  Dogmatum,  page  67.) 
These  divines  chose  to  fall  on  the  opposite  horn  of  the  dilemma,  and 
thus  expressly  to  deny  the  word  of  God.  Others  have  endeavoured  to 
escape  the  difficulty  by  making  faith  in  Christ  a  command  of  the  moral 
lawy  under  which  even  reprobates,  as  they  take  it,  unquestionably  are, 
and  argue,  that  as  by  the  principle  of  moral  law,  all  are  bound  to  believe 
every  thing  which  God  hath  revealed,  so  by  that  law  all  are  bound  to- 
believe  in  Christ,  and,  failing  of  that,  are  by  the  moral  law  justly  con- 
demned. It  were  easy,  in  answer  to  this,  to  show,  that  no  man  in  the 
state  of  a  reprobate,  as  they  represent  it,  is  under  law  of  any  kind,  ex- 
cept a  law  of  necessity  to  do  evil ;  but  waiving  this,  it  were  as  easy  to 
prove,  that,  because  the  moral  law  obliges  us,  " in  principle"  to  do  all- 
which  God  commands,  the  command  to  the  Jews  to  circumcise  theii' 
children  was  a  command  of  the  moral  law,  as  that  to  believe  in  Christ 
is  a  command  of  the  moral  law,  because,  in  principle,  it  obliges  us  to 
believe  what  God  has  revealed.  But  should  it  be  admitted  that  all  are 
bound,  by  the  moral  law,  to  believe  all  that  God  reveals,  yet,  according  to 
them,  it  is  not  revealed  that  Christ  died  for  all ;  this  we  contend  for,  but 
they  contend  against :  all  are  not,  upon  that  very  principle,  therefore,  bound 
to  believe  that  Christ  died  for  them.  Farther,  those  who  hold  this  notion, 
contend  that  the  moral  law  commands  us  to  do  a  thing  impossible,  and 
contrary  to  truth  ;  and  thus  they  fall  upon  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma. 

The  last  class  of  texts  we  have  adduced  in  favour  of  general  redemp- 
tion consists  of  those  which  impute  the  blame  and  fault  of  their  non-sal- 
vation  to  men  themselves.  If  Christ  died  for  all  men,  so  as  to  make 
their  salvation  practicable,  then  the  fault,  according  to  the  doctrme  of 

2 


304  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Scripture,  lies  in  themselves  ;  if  he  died  not  so  for  them  that  they  may 
be  saved,  then  the  bar  to  their  salvation  lies  out  of  themselves,  and  in 
the  absence  of  any  saving  provision  for  them  in  the  Gospel,  which  is 
contrarj^  to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture. 

We  enter  not  now  upon  the  questions  of  the  invincibility  of  grace, 
and  free  and  bound  will.  These  will  come  under  consideration  in  their 
place  ;  and  we  now  confine  ourselves  to  the  argument,  as  it  is  grounded 
upon  texts  of  this  class  as  given  above.  The  common  reply  to  our 
argument,  grounded  upon  these  texts,  at  least  among  the  more  mode- 
rate kind  of  Calvinists,  is,  that  the  fault  is  indeed  in  the  will  of  man,  and 
that  if  men  willed  to  come  to  Christ,  that  they  might  have  life,  they  would 
have  Ufe ;  and  thus,  they  would  have  it  understood,  that  the  argument  is 
answered.  This,  however,  we  deny :  they  have  neither  refuted  it,  nor 
escaped  its  force  ;  and  nothing  which  is  thus  apparently  conceded  weak- 
ens the  force  of  the  conclusion,  that  if  the  bar  to  men's  salvation  be 
wholly  in  themselves,  it  lies  not  in  the  want  of  a  provision  made  for 
their  salvation  in  the  Gospel ;  and  therefore  they  are  so  interested  in 
the  death  of  Christ,  that  they  may  be  saved  by  it. 

For  let  us  put  the  case  as  to  the  non-elect,  who  are  indeed  the  per- 
sons in  question.  Either  it  is  possible  for  them  to  will  to  come  to 
Christ,  and  to  beheve  in  him  ;  or  it  is  not.  If  the  former,  then  they 
may  come  to  Christ,  and  believe  in  him,  without  obtaining  life  and  sal- 
vation ;  for  he  can  dispense  these  blessings  only  to  those  for  whom  he 
purchased  them,  which,  it  is  contended,  he  did  for  the  elect  only.  If 
the  latter,  then  the  bar  to  their  salvation  is  not  in  themselves ;  but  in 
that  which  makes  it  impossible  for  them  to  will  to  come  to  Christ,  and 
to  believe  in  him.  If  it  be  said,  that  though  this  is  impossible  to  them, 
yet  that  still  the  bar  is  in  themselves,  because  it  is  in  the  obstinacy  and 
perverseness  of  their  own  wills,  we  ask,  whether  the  natural  will  of  the 
elect  is  so  much  better  than  that  of  the  reprobate,  that  by  virtue  of  that 
better  natural  will,  they  come  to  Christ  and  believe  in  him  ?  This  they 
will  deny,  and  ascribe  their  willing,  and  coming  to  Christ,  and  believing 
in  him,  to  the  influence  only  of  Divine  grace.  It  will  follow  then,  from 
this,  that  the  bar  to  this  same  kind  of  willing,  and  believing,  on  the  part 
of  the  reprobate,  lies  not  in  themselves,  where  the  Scriptures  constantly 
place  it,  and  so  charge  it  upon  men  as  their  fault,  and  the  reason  of 
their  condemnation ;  but  in  something  without  them,  even  in  the  deter- 
mination and  decree  of  God  not  to  bestow  upon  them  that  influence  of 
his  grace,  by  which  this  good  will,  and  this  power  to  believe  in  Christ, 
are  wrought  in  the  elect :  which  is  precisely  what  the  synod  of  Dort 
has  affirmed.  "  This  was  the  most  free  counsel,  gracious  will,  and  in- 
tention of  God  the  Father ;  that  the  lively  and  saving  efficacy  of  the 
most  precious  death  of  his  Son  should  manifest  itself  in  all  the  elect,  for 
the  bestowing  upon  them  only  justifying  faith ;  and  bringing  them  in- 
2 

I* 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  305 

fallibly  by  it  unto  eternal  life."  (Cap.  2,  art.  8.)  This  doctrine  cannot, 
therefore,  be  true ;  for  the  Scriptures  plainly  place  the  bar  to  the  salva- 
tion  of  them  that  are  lost,  in  themselves,  and  charge  the  fault  only  on 
the  wilful  disobedience  and  unbehef  of  men  ;  while  this  opinion  places 
it  in  the  refusal,  on  the  part  of  God,  to  bestow  that  grace  upon  the  non- 
elect,  by  which  alone  the  evil  of  their  natural  will  can  be  removed. 

Nor  is  this  in  the  least  remedied  by  arguing,  that  as  Christ  is  rejected 
freely  and  voluntarily  by  the  natural  will  of  man,  the  guilt  is  still  charge- 
able upon  himself.  For,  not  here  to  anticipate  what  may  be  said  on  th^ 
freedom  of  the  will,  it  is  confessed  by  Calvinists  that  the  will  of  the  repro- 
bate is  not  free  to  choose  to  come  to  Christ,  and  believe  in  him,  since 
without  grace,  not  even  the  elect  can  do  this.  But  if  it  were  free  td 
choose  Christ,  and  believe  in  him,  the  not  doing  it  would  not  be  charge- 
able upon  them  as  a  fault.  For  they  do  not  reject  Christ  as  a  Saviour; 
since  he  is  not  offered  to  them  as  such  ;  and  they  sin  not,  by  not  believ- 
ing, that  is,  by  not  trusting  in  Christ  for  salvation.  For  as  it  is  not  the 
will  of  God  that  they  should  so  believe,  they  violate  no  command  given 
to  them  to  believe,  unless  it  be  held  that  God  commands  them  to  do  that 
which  he  wills  they  should  not  do ;  which  is  only  absurdly  to  say  that 
he  wills,  and  he  does  not  will  the  same  thing.  And  seeing  that  his  com- 
mands are  the  declarations  of  his  will,  if  the  command  reaches  to  them,^ 
it  is  a  declaration  that  he  wills  that  concerning  them,  which,  on  this  sys- 
tem, he  does  not  will ;  and  this  contradiction  all  are  bound  to  maintain, 
who  charge  the  want  of  faith,  as  a  fault  upon  those  to  whom  the  power 
of  beheving  is  not  imparted. 

But  the  argument  from  this  class  of  texts  is  not  exhausted.  They  not 
only  place  that  bar  and  fault  which  prevents  the  salvation  of  men  ini 
themselves ;  but  they  as  expressly  exclude  God  from  all  participation 
in  it,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  before  us.  "  He  willeth  all  men  to  be 
saved ;"  he  has  "  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth."  "  He  sent 
his  Son  not  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world  through  him  might 
be  saved  ;"  and  he  invites  all,  beseeches  all,  obtests  all,  and  makes  even 
his  threatenings  merciful,  since  he  interposes  them  to  prevent  men  from 
going  on  still  in  their  trespasses,  and  involving  themselves  in  final  ruin. 

Perhaps  not  many  Calvinists  in  the  present  day  are  disposed  to  resort 
to  the  ancient  subterfuge,  of  a  secret  and  a  revealed  will  of  God  ;  (2) 
and  yet  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  they  can  avoid  admitting  this  no- 
tion, without  totally  denying  that  which  is  so  clearly  written,  that  God 
"  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;" 
and  that  he  commands,  by  his  apostle,  that  prayers  should  be  made  "  for 
all  men."  The  universality  of  such  declarations  has  already  been  esta 
blished ;  and  no  way  is  left  for  escaping  the  difficulty  in  this  direction, 

(2)  The  scholastic  terms  are  voluntas  signi,  and  voluntas  bene  placiti,  a  sigid. 
lied  or  revealed  will,  and  a  will  of  pleasure  or  purpobe. 

Vol.  n.  20 


306  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAR'? 

The  incompatibility  of  such  declarations,  with  the  hnuted  extent  of 
Christ's  death,  is  therefore  obvious,  unless  the  term  "  wiW  can  be  mo- 
dified. But  if  God  declares  his  will  in  absolute  terms,  while  he  has  yet 
secret  reserves  of  a  contrary  kind,  (to  say  nothing  of  the  injury  done 
by  such  a  notion,  to  the  character  of  the  God  of  truth,  whose  words  are 
without  dross  of  falsehood,  "  as  silver  tried  in  a  furnace  of  earth,  purified 
seven  times ;")  this  is  to  will  that  all  men  may  be  saved  in  word,  and  yet 
not  to  will  it  in  fact,  which  is  in  truth  not  to  will  it  at  all.  No  subtlety 
of  distinction  can  reconcile  this.  Nor,  according  to  this  scheme  of 
doctrine,  can  God  in  any  way,  will  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect.  It  is 
only  under  one  condition,  that  he  wills  the  salvaticwi  of  any  man :  namely, 
through  the  death  of  Christ.  His  justice  required  this  atonement  for 
sin ;  and  he  could  not  will  man  to  be  saved  to  the  dishonour  of  his  jus- 
tice. If  then  that  atonement  does  not  extend  to  all  men,  he  cannot  will 
the  salvation  of  all  men ;  for  such  of  them  as  are  not  interested  in  this 
atonement,  could  not  be  saved  consistently  with  his  righteous  adminis- 
tration, and  he  could  not,  therefore,  will  it.  If,  then,  he  wills  the  non- 
elect  to  be  saved,  in  any  sense,  he  must  will  this  independently  of  Christ's 
sacrifice  for  sins ;  and  if  he  cannot  will  this  for  the  reason  just  given, 
he  cannot  "  will  all  men  to  be  saved,"  which  is  contrary  to  the  texts 
quoted  :  he  cannot,  therefore,  invite  all  to  be  saved ;  he  cannot  beseech 
all  by  his  ministers  to  be  reconciled  to  him ;  for  these  acts  could  only 
proceed  from  his  willing  them  to  be  saved ;  and  for  the  same  reason, 
"  all  men"  ought  not  to  be  prayed  for  by  those  who  hold  this  doctrine, 
since  they  assume,  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  God  that  all  men  should  be 
saved.  Thus  they  repeal  the  apostle's  precept,  as  well  as  the  principle 
upon  which  it  is  built,  by  mere  human  authority ;  or  else  they  so  inter- 
pret the  principle,  as  to  impeach  the  truth  of  God,  and  so  practise  the 
precept,  as  to  indulge  reserves  in  tlieir  own  mind,  similar  to  those  they 
feign  to  be  in  the  mind  of  God.  While,  therefore,  it  remains  on  record, 
that  "  God  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth ;"  and  that  he  "  willeth  not  that  any  should  perish,  but  that 
all  should  come  to  repentance,"  it  must  be  concluded,  that  Christ  died 
for  all ;  and  that  the  reason  of  the  destruction  of  any  part  of  our  race 
lies  not  in  the  want  of  a  provision  for  their  salvation ;  not  in  any  limi- 
tation of  the  purchase  of  Christ,  and  the  administration  of  his  grace ; 
but  in  their  obstinate  rejection  of  both. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

The  Same  Subject  Continued. 

So  far,  then,  we  have  advanced  in  this  discussion  as  to  show,  that 
while  no  passage  of  Scripture  can  be  adduced,  or  is  even  pretended  to 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES*  307 

exist,  which  declares  that  Christ  did  not  die  equally  for  all  men,  there 
are  numerous  passages  which  explicitly,  and  in  terms  which  cannot,  by 
any  fair  interpretation,  be  wrested  from  that  meaning,  declare  the  con- 
trary ;  and  that  there  are  others,  as  numerous,  which  contain  the  doc- 
trine by  necessary  implication  and  inference.  To  implication  and  infer- 
ence the  Calvinist  divines  also  resort,  and  the  more  so,  as  they  have 
not  a  direct  text  in  favour  of  their  scheme.  It  is  necessary,  therefore, 
in  order  to  obtain  a  comprehensive  view  of  this  controversy,  compressed 
into  as  narrow  limits  as  possible,  to  examine  those  parts  of  Scripture 
which,  according  to  their  inferential  interpretations,  limit  not  merely  the 
actual,  but  the  intentional  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ  to  the  elect  only. 

The  first  are  those  passages  which  treat  of  persons,  said  to  be  elected, 
foreknown,  and  predestinated  to  the  spiritual  and  celestial  blessings  of 
the  new  dispensation ;  and  the  argument  from  the  texts  in  which  these 
distinctions  occur,  is,  that  the  persons  so  called,  elected,  foreknown,  and 
predestinated,  are,  by  that  very  distinction,  marked  out  as  the  only  per.* 
sons  to  whom  the  death  of  Christ  intentionally  extends. 

We  reserve  it  to  another  place  to  state  the  systematic  views  which 
the  followers  of  Calvin,  in  their  different  shades  of  opinion,  take  of  the 
doctrines  of  election,  &c,  lest  our  more  simple  inquiry  into  the  sense  of 
Scripture  should  be  disturbed  by  extraneous  topics ;  and  we  are  now, 
therefore,  merely  called  to  consider,  how  far  this  argument,  which  is 
professedly  drawn  from  Scripture  and  not  from  metaphysical  principles, 
is  supported  or  refuted,  by  an  examination  of  those  portions  of  Holy 
Writ  on  which  it  is  usually  built :  and  it  will  not  prove  a  difficult  task 
to  show,  that,  when  fairly  interpreted,  they  contain  nothing  which  obliges 
us  to  narrow  our  interpretation  of  those  passages  which  extend  the  bene^ 
fit  of  the  death  of  Christ  to  all  mankind ;  and  that,  in  some  views,  they 
strongly  corroborate  their  most  extended  meaning.  Of  a  Divine  elec- 
lion,  or  choosing  and  separation  from  others,  we  have  three  kinds  men- 
tioned in  the  Scriptures. 

The  FIRST  is  the  election  of  individuals  to  perform  some  particular 
and  special  service.  Cyrus  was  "  elected"  to  rebuild  the  temple  ;  the 
twelve  apostles  were  "  chosen,"  elected,  to  their  office  by  Christ ;  St. 
Paul  was  a  "  chosen,"  or  elected,  "  vessel,"  to  be  the  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. This  kind  of  election  to  special  office  and  service  has,  however, 
manifestly  no  relation  to  the  limitation  of  eternal  salvation,  either  in! 
respect  of  the  persons  themselves  so  chosen,  or  of  others.  With  respect 
to  themselves,  it  did  not  confer  upon  them  an  absolute  security.  One 
of  the  twelve  elected  apostles  was  Judas,  who  fell  and  was  lost ;  and  St. 
Paul  confesses  his  own  personal  habihty  to  become  "  a  castaway,"  after 
all  his  zeal  and  abundant  labours.  With  respect  to  others,  the  twelve 
apostles,  and  St.  Paul  afierward,  were  "  elected"  to  preach  the  Gospel 
in  order  to  the  salvation  of  all  to  whom  they  had  access. 

2 


30d  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  SECoivD  kind  of  election  which  we  find  in  Scripture,  is  the  elec- 
tion of  nations,  or  bodies  of  people,  to  eminent  religious  privileges,  and 
in  order  to  accomplish,  by  their  superior  illumination,  the  merciful  pur- 
poses of  God,  in  benefitting  other  nations  or  bodies  of  people.  Thus 
the  descendants  of  Abraham,  the  Jews,  were  chosen  to  receive  special 
revelations  of  truth ;  and  to  be  "  the  people  of  God,"  to  be  his  visible 
Church,  and  publicly  to  observe  and  uphold  his  worship.  "  The  Lord 
thy  God  hath  chosen  thee  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto  himself,  above 
all  people  that  are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth."  "  The  Lord  had  a  de- 
light in  thy  fathers  to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  after  them, 
even  you,  above  all  people."  It  was  especially  on  account  of  the  apph- 
cation  of  the  terms  elect,  chosen,  and  peculiar,  to  the  Jewish  people, 
that  they  were  so  famiharly  used  by  the  apostles  in  their  epistles  ad- 
dressed to  the  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles,  then  constituting  the  Church 
of  Christ  in  various  places.  For  Christians  were  the  subjects,  also,  of 
this  second  kind  of  election ;  the  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  be  the 
visible  people  and  Church  of  God  in  the  world,  and  to  be  endowed  with 
peculiar  privileges.  Thus  they  became,  though  in  a  more  special  and 
exalted  sense,  the  chosen  people,  the  elect  of  God.  We  say  in  a  more 
special  sense,  because  as  the  entrance  into  the  Jewish  Church  was  by 
natural  birth,  and  the  entrance  into  the  Christian  Church,  properly  so 
called,  is  by  faith  and  a  spiritual  birth,  these  terms,  although  many  be- 
came Christians  by  mere  profession,  and  enjoyed  various  privileges  in 
consequence  of  their  people  or  nation  being  chosen  to  receive  the  Gos- 
pel, have  generally  respect,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  bodies  of  true 
believers,  or  to  the  whole  body  of  true  believers  as  such.  They  are  not, 
therefore,  to  be  interpreted,  according  to  the  scheme  of  Dr.  Taylor,  of 
Norwich,  by  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish,  but  by  the  constitution  of 
the  Christian  Church. 

To  understand  the  nature  of  this  "  election,"  as  applied  sometimes  to 
particular  bodies  of  Christians,  as  when  St.  Peter  says,  "  the  Church 
which  is  at  Babylon,  elected  together  with  you,"  and  sometimes  to  the 
whole  body  of  believers  every  where  ;  and  also  the  reason  of  the  fre- 
quent use  of  the  term  election,  and  of  the  occurrence  of  allusions  to  the 
fact,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  a  great  religious  revolution,  so  to 
speak,  had  occurred  in  the  age  of  the  apostles  ;  with  the  full  import  of 
which  we  cannot,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  a  little  reflection,  be 
adequately  impressed.  This  was  no  other  than  the  abrogation  of  the 
Church  state  of  the  Jews,  which  had  continued  for  so  many  ages. 
They  had  been  the  only  visible  acknowledged  people  of  God  in  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth ;  for  whatever  pious  people  might  have  existed  in 
other  nations,  they  were  not,  in  the  sight  of  men,  and  collectively,  ac- 
knowledged as  "the  people  of  Jehovah."  They  had  no  written  revela- 
tions, no  appointed  ministry,  no  forms  of  authorized  initiation  into  his 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 

Church  and  covenant,  no  appointed  holy  days,  no  sanctioned  ritual.  All 
these  were  peculiar  to  the  Jews,  who  were,  therefore,  an  elected  and 
peculiar  people.  This  distinguished  honour  they  were  about  to  lose. 
They  might  have  retained  it,  had  they,  by  belie\ing  the  Gospel,  admitted 
the  believing  Gentiles  of  all  nations  to  share  it  with  them ;  but  the  great 
reason  of  their  peculiarity  and  election,  as  a  nation,  was  terminated  by 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  be  "  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gen- 
tiles," as  well  as  "  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel."  Their  pride  and 
consequent  unbelief  resented  this,  which  will  explain  their  enmity  to  the 
believing  part  of  the  Gentiles,  who,  when  that  which  St.  Paul  calls  "  the 
fellowship  of  the  mystery"  was  fully  explained,  chiefly  by  the  glorious 
ministry  of  that  apostle  himself,  were  called  into  this  Church  relation 
and  state  of  visible  acknowledgment  as  the  people  of  God,  which  the 
Jews  had  formerly  enjoyed,  and  that  with  even  a  higher  degree  of  glory, 
in  proportion  to  the  superior  spirituality  of  the  new  dispensation.  It  was 
this  doctrine  which  excited  that  strong  irritation  in  the  minds  of  the  un- 
believing Jews,  and  in  some  partially  Christianized  ones,  to  which  so 
many  references  are  made  in  the  New  Testament.  They  were  "  pro- 
voked," were  made  "jealous;"  and  were  often  roused  to  the  madness 
of  persecuting  opposition  by  it.  There  was  then  a  new  election  of  a 
NEW  PEOPLE  of  God,  to  be  composed  of  Jews,  not  by  virtue  of  their 
NATURAL  DESCENT,  but  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  of  Gentiles  of  all 
nations,  also  beheving,  and  put,  as  believers,  on  equal  ground  with  the 
believing  Jews ;  and  there  was  also  a  rejection,  a  reprobation,  if  the 
term  please  any  one  better ;  but  not  an  absolute  one :  for  the  elec- 
tion was  offered  to  the  Jews  first,  in  every  place,  by  offering  them  the 
Gospel.  Some  embraced  it,  and  submitted  to  be  the  elect  people  of 
God,  on  the  new  ground  of  faith,  instead  of  the  old  one  of  natural  de- 
scent ;  and  therefore  the  apostle,  Rom.  xi,  7,  calls  the  believing  part  of 
the  Jews,  "  the  election,"  in  opposition  to  those  who  opposed  this  "  elec- 
tion of  grace,"  and  still  clung  to  their  former  and  now  repealed  election 
as  Jews  and  the  descendants  of  Abraham  ; — "  but  the  election  hath  ob- 
tained it,  and  the  rest  were  blinded."  The  ofTer  had  been  made  to  the 
whole  nation ;  all  might  have  joined  the  one  body  of  believing  Jews  and 
believing  Gentiles ;  but  the  major  part  of  them  refused  :  they  would  not 
"  come  in  to  the  supper  ;"  they  made  "  light  of  it ;"  light  of  an  election 
founded  on  faith,  and  which  placed  the  relation  of  "  the  people  of  God" 
upon  spiritual  attainments,  and  offered  to  them  only  spiritual  blessings. 
They  were,  therefore,  deprived  of  election  and  Church  relationship  of 
every  kind  : — their  temple  was  burned  ;  their  political  state  aboHshed  ; 
their  genealogies  confounded ;  their  worship  annihilated  ;  and  all  visi- 
ble acknowledgment  of  them  by  God  as  a  Church  withdrawn,  and  trans- 
ferred to  a  Church  henceforward  to  be  composed  chiefly  of  Gentiles : 
and  thus,  says  St.  Paul,  Rom.  x,  19,  "  were  fulfilled  the  words  of  Moses, 

2 


310  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are  no  people^  and  by  a 
foolish  (ignorant  and  idolatrous)  people  I  will  anger  you." 

It  is  easy  now  to  see  what  is  the  import  of  the  "  calling"  and  "  elec- 
tion" of  the  Christian  Church,  as  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
was  not  the  calling  and  the  electing  of  one  nation  in  particular  to  suc- 
ceed the  Jews  ;  but  it  was  the  calling  and  the  electing  of  believers  in 
all  nations,  wherever  the  Gospel  should  be  preached,  to  be  in  reality 
what  the  Jews  had  been  but  typically,  and,  therefore,  in  an  inferior 
degree,  the  visible  Church  of  God,  "  his  people,"  under  Christ  "  the 
Head ;"  with  an  authenticated  revelation ;  with  an  appointed  ministry, 
never  to  be  lost ;  with  authorized  worship ;  with  holy  days  and  festi- 
vals ;  with  instituted  forms  of  initiation ;  and  with  special  protection  and 
favour. 

This  second  kind  of  election  being  thus  explained,  we  may  inquire, 
whether  any  thing  arises  out  of  it,  either  as  it  respects  the  Jewish 
Church,  or  the  Christian  Church,  which  obliges  us  in  any  degree  to 
limit  the  expHcit  declarations  of  Scripture,  as  to  the  universal  extent  of 
the  intentional  benefit  of  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

With  respect  to  the  ancient  election  of  the  Jews  to  be  the  peculiar 
people  and  visible  Church  of  God,  we  may  observe, 

1.  That  it  did  not  argue  such  a  limitation  of  the  saving  mercy  of  God 
to  them,  as  that  their  election  secured  the  salvation  of  every  Jew  indi- 
vidually. This  will  be  acknowledged  by  all ;  for,  as  the  foundation  of 
their  Church  state  was  their  natural  relation  to  Abraham,  and  our  Lord, 
with  allusion  to  this,  says  to  Nicodemus,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh,"  none  of  them  could  be  saved  by  virtue  of  being  "  Jews 
outwardly." 

2.  That  it  did  not  argue,  that  siifficient,  though  not  equal  means  of 
salvation,  were  not  left  to  the  non-elected  Gentile  nations.  These  were 
still  a  "  law  unto  themselves ;"  and  "  in  every  nation,"  says  St.  Peter, 
"he  that  feareth  God,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with 
him." 

3.  That,  so  far  from  the  election  of  the  Jewish  nation  arguing  that 
the  mercy  of  God  was  restrained  from  the  Gentile  nations,  it  is  manifest 
that,  great  reason  as  the  Almighty  had  to  be  provoked  by  their  idolatries, 
the  election  of  the  Jews  was  intended  for  their  benefit  also ;  that  it  was 
not  only  designed  to  preserve  truth,  but  to  diffuse  it,  and  to  counteract 
the  spread  of  superstition  and  idolatry.  The  miracles  wrought  from 
age  to  age  among  them,  exalted  "  Jehovah"  above  the  gods  of  the 
heathen ;  rays  of  light  from  their  sacred  books  and  institutions  spread 
far  beyond  themselves  ;  the  temple  of  Solomon  had  its  court  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  the  "  stranger"  from  "  a  far  country"  had  access  to  it,  and 
enjoyed  his  right  of  praying  to  the  true  God ;  their  captivities  and  dis- 
persions wondrously  fulfilled  the  purposes  of  justice  as  to  them,  and  of 

2 


SECOND.l  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  311 

mercy  as  to  the  nations  into  which  they  were  carried ;  and  their  whole 
history  bore  an  illustrious  part  in  that  series  of  the  Divine  dispensations 
by  which  the  Gentile  world  was  prepared  for  the  coming  of  Christ,  and 
the  establishment  of  his  religion.  This  subject  has  already  been 
adverted  to  and  illustrated  in  the  first  part  of  this  work.  Jerusalem 
was,  in  an  inferior  sense,  literally  "  the  joy  of  the  whole  earth ;"  and 
*'  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,"  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  have,  in  all  ages, 
in  some  degree,  been  blessed. 

With  respect  to  the  "  election"  of  the  Christian  Church,  we  also 
observe, 

1.  That  neither  does  its  election  suppose  such  a  special  grace  of 
God,  as  secures  infaUibly  the  salvation  of  every  one  of  its  members ; 
that  is,  in  other  words,  of  every  elected  person.  For  to  pass  over  the 
case  of  those  who  are  Christians  but  in  name,  even  true  Christians  are 
exhorted  to  give  diligence  to  make  their  "  calling  and  election  sure  ;'* 
and  are  warned  against  "  turning  back  to  perdition"  We  have  also 
seen,  in  the  case  of  the  apostates  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, that,  in  point  of  fact,  some  of  those  who  had  thus  been  actually 
elected,  and  brought  into  a  state  of  salvation,  had  fallen  away  into  a 
condition  of  extreme  hazard,  or  of  utter  hopelessness. 

2.  That  the  election  of  Christians,  as  members  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  concludes  nothing  against  the  saving  mercy  of  God  being  still 
exercised  as  to  those  who  are  not  of  the  Church.  Even  the  Calvinists 
cannot  deny  this  ;  for  many  who  are  not  now  of  the  body  of  the  visible 
and  true  Church  of  Christ,  may,  according  to  their  scheme,  be  yet  called 
and  chosen  into  that  body,  and  thus  partake  of  an  election  which,  while 
they  are  notoriously  wicked  and  alien  from  the  Church  of  Christ,  they 
do  not  actually  partake  of,  whatever  may  be  the  secret  purposes  of  God 
concerning  them. 

3.  That  Christians  are  thus  elected,  and  made  the  Church  of  God, 
not  in  consequence  of  others  being  excluded  from  the  compassions  and 
redeeming  mercy  of  Christ ;  but  for  their  benefit  and  salvation,  that  they 
also  may  be  called  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Gospel.  "  Ye  are  the  hght 
of  the  world ;"  "  ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth."  But  in  what  sense 
could  the  Church  be  "  the  hght  of  the  world,"  were  there  no  capacity 
in  the  world  to  receive  the  same  light  with  which  it  is  itself  enhghtened  1 
or  "  the  salt  of  the  earth,"  if  it  did  not  exist  for  the  purifying  of  the 
mass  beyond  itself,  with  the  same  purity  ?  Yet  if  such  a  capacity  exists 
in  "  the  world,"  it  is  from  the  grace  of  God  alone  that  it  derives  it,  and 
not  from  nature ;  a  grace  which  could  be  imparted  to  the  world  only  in 
consequence  of  the  death  of  Christ.  Thus  nothing  is  to  be  argued  from 
the  actual  election  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  God's  visible  and  acknow- 
lodged  people  on  earth,  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  that  election  limits  the 
benefits  of  our  Lord's  atonement ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  this  election  of 

2 


818  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  Church  has,  for  one  of  its  final  causes,  the  illumination  of  the  world. 
But  as  Calvinistic  commentators  have  so  generally  confounded  this 
collective  election  with  personal  election,  (a  doctrine  to  which,  in  its 
proper  place,  we  shall  presently  advert,)  and  have,  in  consequence, 
misunderstood  and  misinterpreted  the  argument  of  St.  Paul,  in  the  ninth, 
tentli,  and  eleventh  chapters  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  this  cele- 
brated discourse  of  the  apostle  requires  to  be  briefly  examined. 

Let  the  reader,  then,  take  the  epistle  in  his  hand,  and  follow  the 
argument  in  these  chapters,  with  reference  to  the  determining  of  the  two 
main  questions  at  issue,  namely,  whether  personal  or  collective  election 
be  the  subject  of  the  apostle's  discoui'se ;  and  whether  the  election,  of 
which  he  speaks,  qf  >yhatever  kind  it  may  be,  is,  in  t\\e  sense  of  the 
Calvini^ts,  unconditional. 

Let  us  examine  the  discourse,  first,  with  reference  to  the  question  of 
personal  or  collective  election. 

It  is  acknowledged  by  all,  that,  whatever  other  subjects  the  apostle 
may  or  may  not  connect  with  it,  he  treats  of  the  casting  oH'  of  the  Jews, 
as  the  visible  Church  of  God,  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  into  that 
relation.  For  tlie  case  of  the  Jews  he  expresses  great  "  sorrow  of 
heart ;"  not  indeed  because  God  had  now  determined  to  compose  his 
visible  Church  upon  a  new  principle,  that  of  tiiith,  and  to  constitute  it 
no  longer  upon  that  of  natural  descent  from  Abraham  ;  for  to  announce 
this  doctrine  St.  Paul  "was  chosen  to  be  an  apostle,  and  to  call,  by 
earnest  and  extensive  labours,  not  only  the  Gentiles,  but  the  Jews  thank- 
fully to  submit  to  it,  by  receiving  the  Gospel :  but  he  had  great  "  sor- 
row of  heart,''  both  on  account  of  their  having  rejected  this  gracious 
plier,  and  of  the  calamities  which  the  approaching  destruction  of  their 
nation  would  bring  upon  them,  verses  1,  2.  The  enumeration  which  he 
makes  in  verses  4  and  5,  of  the  religious  honours  and  privileges  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  while  it  remained  a  Church  accomplishing  the  purposes 
of  God,  shows  that  he  did  nqt  intend,  by  proclaiming  the  new  foundation 
on  which  God  would  now  construct  his  Church,  and  elect  to  himself  a 
people  out  of  all  nations,  to  detract  at  all  from  the  Divinity  or  glory  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation. 

The  objection  made,  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  to  this  doctrine  of  the 
abolition  of  the  Jewish  visible  Church  as  founded  upon  descent  from 
Abraham,  in  the  line  of  Isaac,  was,  as  we  may  collect  from  verse  6, 
that  it  was  contrar}'  to  the  word  and  promise  of  God  made  to  Abraham. 
This  objection  St.  Paul  first  refutes  : — "  Not  as  though  the  word  of  God 
hath  taken  none  effect,"  literally  "  has  fallen,"  or  "  tallen  to  the  ground," 
that  is,  has  not  been  accomplished ;  or  as  though  this  election  of  a  new 
Church,  composed  only  of  belieWng  Jews  and  Gentiles,  was  contrary  to 
the  promises  made  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii,  7,  S,  "  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  he  a 
2 


\ 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  313 

God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  This  he  proves,  from 
several  events,  which  the  Jews  could  not  deny,  as  being  in  the  records 
of  their  own  history.  By  these  facts  he  shows,  that  the  exclusion  of  a 
part  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  at  various  times,  from  being  the  visible 
Church  of  God,  was  not,  as  the  Jews  themselves  must  allow,  any  viola- 
tion of  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  He  first  instances  the  case  of  the 
descendants  of  Jacob  himself,  although  he  was  the  son  of  Isaac.  "  All 
are  not  Israel,  (God's  visible  Church  and  acknowledged  people,)  who 
are  of  Israel,"  or  Jacob ;  for  a  great  part  of  the  ten  tribes  who  had  been 
carried  into  captivity  before  the  Babylonian  invasion  of  Judah,  had  never 
returned,  had  never  been  again  collected  into  a  people,  and  had,  for 
ages,  been  cast  out  of  their  ancient  Church  state  and  relation,  though, 
by  natural  descent,  they  were  "  of  Israel,"  that  is,  descendants  of 
Jacob. 

From  Jacob  he  ascends  to  Abraham,  verse  7  :  "  Neither,  because  they 
are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children,"  that  is  Abraham's  "  seed" 
in  the  sense  of  the  promise  ;  "  but  in  Isaac"  not  in  Ishmael,  "  shall  thy 
SEED  be  called ;"  "  that  is,  they  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh," 
Ishmael  by  Ha;rar,  and  his  descendants,  "  these  are  not  the  children  of 
God.  But  the  children  of  the  promise,"  Isaac,  bom  of  Sarah,  and  his 
descendants  "  are  counted  for  the  seed,"  meaning,  obviously,  for  that  seed 
to  whom  the  promise  refers.  He  gives  a  third  instance  of  this  election 
and  exclusion  taken  from  the  children  of  Isaac,  ver.  10-13,  "  An*d  not 
only  this ;  but  when  Rebecca  also  had  conceived  by  one,  even  by  our 
father  Isaac  ;  (for  the  children  being  not  yet  bom,  neither  having  done 
good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election,"  the  election 
of  one  in  preference  to  the  other,  '*'  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  him 
that  calleth :)  it  was  said  unto  her,  The  elder  shall  ser\e  the  younger. 
As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated."  On  this 
last  passage,  so  often  perverted  to  serve  the  system  of  Cahinian  elec- 
tion and  reprobation,  a  few  remarks  more  at  large  may  be  allowed. 

1.  The  argument  of  the  apostle,  of  which  this  instance  is  in  continu- 
ance requires  us  to  understand  that  he  is  still  speaking  of  "  the  seed" 
intended  in  the  promise,  which  did  not  comprise  all  the  descendants 
either  of  Abraham,  or  Isaac,  or  Jacob,  for  he  brings  instances  of  exclu- 
sion  from  each  ;  but  such  as  God  elected  to  be  his  visible  Church  :  he  is 
not  therefore  speaking  of  the  personal  election  or  rejection  of  Isaac,  or 
Ishmael,  or  Jacob,  or  Esau  ;  but  of  their  descendants  in  certain  lines,  as 
elected  to  be  the  acknowledged  Church  of  God. 

2.  This  is  proved,  also,  from  those  passages  in  the  histor\^  of  Moses, 
which  furnish  the  facts  on  which  the  apostle  reasons,  and  which  he 
quotes  briefly  as  being  well  known  to  the  Jews.  "  As  it  is  written,  The 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger."  Now  this  is  written,  Gen.  xxv,  23, 
«  Two  NATIONS  are  in  thy  womb,  and  two  manner  of  people  shall  be 


314  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

separated  from  thy  bowels ;  and  the  one  people  shall  be  stronger  than 
the  other  people  ;  and  the  elder,"  the  descendants  of  the  elder,  "  shall 
serve  the  younger."  So  far,  indeed,  was  this  prophecy  from  being  in- 
tended  of  Esau  personally,  that  he  himself  did  never  serve  his  brother 
Jacob,  although  he  wantonly  surrendered  to  him  his  birthright.  Another 
passage  is  found  in  the  Prophet  Malachi  i,  2,  3,  and  expresses  God's 
dealings,  not  with  the  individuals  Jacob  and  Esau ;  but  with  their  de- 
scendants, who,  according  to  frequent  usage  in  Scripture,  are  called  by 
the  names  of  their  first  ancestors.  "  Was  not  Esau  Jacob's  brother  ? 
yet  I  loved  Jacob,  and  I  hated  Esau,  and  laid  his  mountains  and  his 
heritage  waste  for  the  dragons  of  the  wilderness !"  judgments  which  fell 
not  upon  Esau  personally,  but  upon  the  Edomites  his  descendants. 

3.  If  the  apostle,  in  this  instance  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  speaks  of  the  rejec- 
tion or  reprobation  of  individuals,  he  says  nothing  at  all  to  his  purpose, 
because  he  is  discoursing  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  as  a  nation, 
from  being  any  longer  the  visible  and  acknowledged  Church  of  God  in 
the  world ;  so  that  instances  of  individual  reprobation  would  have 
been  impertinent  to  his  purpose.  But  to  proceed  with  the  apostle's 
discourse. 

Having  shown,  by  these  instances,  that  God  had  limited  the  covenant 
to  a  part  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  at  different  periods,  he  puts  it  to 
the  objecting  Jews  to  say,  whether,  on  that  account,  there  was  a  failure 
of  his  covenant  with  Abraham ;  "  What  shall  we  say  then,  Is  there  un- 
righteousness with  God?  God  forbid."  The  word  unrighteousness  is 
usually  taken  in  the  sense  of  injustice,  but  is  sometimes  used  in  the  sense 
of  falsehood  and  unfaithfulness,  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
well  as  by  the  LXX ;  and  in  this  sense  it  well  agrees  with  the  apostle's 
reasoning ;  "  Is  there  then  unfaithfulness  with  God,"  because  he  has  so 
frequently  limited  the  promise  made  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  to  parti- 
cular branches  of  that  seed  ?  The  apostle  denies  that  in  this  there  was 
any  U7i faithfulness,  or,  in  the  sense  of  injustice,  which  perhaps  is  to  be 
preferred,  any  "  unrighteousness  in  God ;"  and  the  Jews  themselves  are 
bound  to  agree  with  him,  since,  as  the  apostle  adds,  it  was  a  general  prin- 
ciple laid  down  in  their  own  law,  by  the  Lawgiver  himself  when  speaking 
lo  Moses,  and  by  which,  therefore,  all  such  promises  of  special  favour  must 
be  interpreted, — "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  I 
will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compassion."  The  connec- 
tion of  these  words  as  they  stand  in  Exodus  xxxiii,  19,  shows  that  the  mercy 
and  grace  here  spoken  of,  refer  not,  as  Beza  would  have  it,  to  that  mercy 
exercised  to  individuals  which  supposes  misery,  and  consists  in  the  exer- 
cise of  pardon ;  but  to  the  granting  of  special  favours  and  privileges. 
For  the  words  are  spoken  to  Moses,  in  answer  to  his  prayer,  "  I  beseech 
thee,  show  me  thy  glory."  To  him  God  had  before  said,  verse  17, 
"Thou  hast  found  grace  in  my  sight,  and  I  know  thee  by  thy  name." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  315 

He  was  not,  therefore,  in  tlie  case  of  a  guilty,  miserable  man.  Nor  do 
the  words  refer  to  the  forgiveness  of  the  people  at  his  intercession. 
This  had  been  done ;  the  transaction,  as  to  them,  had  been  finished,  as 
the  history  shows ;  and  then  Moses,  encouraged  by  the  success  of  his 
intercessions  for  them,  makes  a  bold  but  wholly  personal  request  for 
himself.  "  And  he  said,  I  beseech  thee,  show  me  thy  glory.  And  he 
said,  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  pass  before  thee,  and  I  will  proclaim 
the  name  of  the  Lord  before  thee ;  and  will  be  gracious,"  in  showing 
these  great  condescensions,  "to  whom  I  will  be  gracious,  and  will 
show  mercy  on  whom  I  will  show  mercy."  God  has  a  right  to  select 
whom  he  pleases  to  enjoy  special  privileges ;  in  this  there  is  no  "  unright- 
eousness," and,  therefore,  in  limiting  those  favours  to  such  branches  of 
Abraham's  seed,  as  he  chose  to  elect,  neither  his  justice  nor  his  truth 
was  impeached.  This  is  obvious,  when  the  words  are  interpreted  of  the 
election  of  collective  bodies  of  men,  and  of  the  individuals  which  compose 
them,  to  peculiar  favours  and  religious  privileges ;  while  yet  all  others  have 
still  the  means  of  salvation.  The  onus  lies  only  upon  them  who  inter- 
pret this  part  of  Scripture  of  personal,  unconditional  election  and  repro- 
bation, to  show  how  it  can  be  a  "  righteous'^  proceeding  to  punish  men 
for  not  availing  themselves  of  means  of  salvation  which  are  never  afforded 
ihem.  Tliis  is  manifestly  "  unrighteous  ;"  but  in  the  election  and  rejec- 
tion spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  he  expressly  denies  that  there  is  "  unright- 
eousness with  God  ;"  he  does  this  in  a  solemn  manner,  "  God  forbid :" 
and,  therefore,  the  kind  of  election  and  rejection  of  which  he  speaks 
is  not  the  unconditional  election  and  reprobation  of  individuals  to  or 
from  eternal  salvation. 

The  conclusion  of  the  apostle's  answer  to  the  objection  of  the  Jews, 
that  the  casting  off  a  part  of  the  Jewish  nation,  even  all  who  did  not 
believe  in  Christ,  was  contrary  to  the  promises  made  to  Abraham,  is, 
^'So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God 
that  showeth  mercy."  He  grants  special  favours,  as  the  term  "  showing 
mercy,"  in  the  preceding  verse,  has  been  already  proved  to  mean  ;  and 
in  granting  these  special  favours  he  often  acts  contrary  to  the  designs 
and  efforts  of  men,  and  frustrates  both.  The  allusion  contained  in  these 
words,  to  the  case  of  Isaac  and  Esau,  is,  therefore,  highly  beautiful  and 
appropriate, — "  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth.^^ 
Isaac  mlled  that  Esau,  the  first  born,  should  have  the  blessing ;  and 
Esau  ran  for  the  venison  as  the  means  of  obtaining  it ;  but  still  Jacob 
obtained  it.  The  blessing  was  not,  however,  a  personal  one,  but 
referred  to  the  people  of  whom  Jacob  was  to  be  the  progenitor,  as  the 
history  given  by  Moses  will  show.  Thus  this  case  also  affords  no  exam- 
pie  of  personal  election. 

The  apostle  having  proved  that  there  was  neither  unfaithfulness  nor 
unrighteousness  in  God,  in  selecting  from  his  own  good  pleasure,  from 

2 


316  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

his  sovereignty  if  the  term  please  better,  the  persons  to  be  endowed  with 
special  religious  honours  and  privileges,  proceeds  to  show,  with  refer- 
ence, not  only  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  from  the  visible 
Church,  but  also  to  the  terrible  judgments  which  our  Lord  himself  had 
predicted,  and  which  were  about  to  come  upon  them,  that  he  exercises 
also  the  prerogative  of  making  some  notorious  sinners,  and  especially 
when  they  set  themselves  to  oppose  his  purposes,  the  eminent  and  un- 
equivocal objects  of  his  displeasure.  Here  again  he  uses  for  illustration 
an  example  taken  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  But  let  the  example  be 
marked.  Had  it  been  his  intention  to  show,  that  the  personal  election 
of  Isaac  and  Jacob  necessarily  implied  the  personal  reprobation  of  Isli- 
mael  and  Esau ;  and  that  their  not  receiving  special  privileges  neces- 
sarily cut  them  off  from  salvation,  so  that  being  left  to  themselves  they 
became  objects  of  wrath,  then  would  he  have  selected  them  as  his  illus- 
trative examples,  for  this  would  have  been  required  by  his  argument. 
But  he  selects  Pharaoh,  not  a  descendant  of  Abraham ;  a  person  not 
involved  in  the  cases  of  non-election  which  had  taken  place  in  Abraham's 
family  ;  but  a  notoriously  wicked  prince,  and  one  who  resolved  to  oppose 
himself  to  the  designs  of  God  in  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  bondage. 
His  doctrine,  then,  manifestly  is,  that  when  these  two  characters  meet 
in  individuals,  or  in  nations,  notorious  vice  and  flagrant  opposition  to 
God's  plans  and  purposes,  he  often  makes  them  the  objects  of  his  spe- 
cial displeasure ;  giving  them  up  to  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  and 
postponing  their  destruction  to  make  it  more  impressively  manifest  to 
the  world.  In  every  respect  Pharaoh  was  a  most  appropriate  example 
to  illustrate  the  case  of  the  body  of  the  unbeheving  Jews,  who,  when  the 
apostle  wrote,  were  under  the  sentence  of  a  terrible  excision.  Pharaoh 
had  several  times  hardened  his  own  heart ;  now  God  hardens  it,  that  is, 
in  Scripture  language,  withdraws  his  all-gracious  interposition,  and  gives 
him  up.  So  the  Jews  had  hardened  their  hearts  against  repeated  calls 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ;  now  God  was  about  to  give  them  up,  as  a 
nation,  to  destruction.  Pharaoh  was  not  suddenly  cut  off,  but  was 
spared  ;  "  for  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up"  from  the  effect 
of  so  many  plagues  ;  that  is,  I  have  not  destroyed  thee  outright.  The 
LXX  translate,  "  thou  hast  been  preserved ;"  for  the  Hebrew  word 
'rendered  by  us,  "raised  up,"  never  signifies  to  bring  a  person  or 
thing  into  being,  but  to  preserve,  support,  establish,  or  make  to  stand. 
Thus,  also,  the  Jews  had  not  been  instantly  cut  off;  but  had  been 
"  endured  with  much  long  suffering,"  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of 
repentance,  of  which  many  availed  themselves  ;  and  the  remainder 
were  still  endured,  though  they  were  filling  up  the  measure  of  their 
iniquities,  and  would,  in  the  end,  but  by  their  own  fault,  display  more 
eminently,  the  justice  and  severity  of  God.  Pharaoh's  crowning  offence 
was  his  rebellious  opposition  to  the  designs  of  God  in  taking  Israel 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  317 

out  of  Egypt,  and  establishing  them  in  Canaan  as  an  independent  nation, 
and  as  the  Church  of  God ;  the  Jews  filled  up  the  measure  of  their 
iniquities  by  endeavouring  to  withstand  the  purpose  of  God  as  to  the 
Gentiles ;  his  purpose  to  elect  a  Church,  composed  of  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  only  on  the  ground  of  faith,  and  this  made  the  cases  parallel. 
Therefore,  says  the  apostle,  it  follows  from  all  these  examples,  that 
"  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,"  gives  special  religious 
advantages  to  those  whom  he  wills  to  elect  for  this  purpose ;  "  and 
whom  he  will,"  w^hom  he  chooses  to  select  as  examples  from  among 
notorious  sinners  who  rebelliously  oppose  his  designs,  "  he  hardeneth," 
or  gives  up  to  a  hardness  which  they  themselves  have  cherished.  In 
verse  19,  the  Jew  is  again  introduced  as  an  objector.  "  Thou  wilt  say 
then  unto  me,  Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  ?  For  who  hath  resisted  his 
will  ?"  and  to  this  St.  Paul  answers,  "  Nay  but,  O  man,  who  art  thou 
that  repliest  against  God?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that 
formed  it.  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?"  verse  20.  The  usual  way 
in  which  the  objection  is  explained,  by  non-Calvinistic  commentators, 
is ; — if  the  continuance  of  the  Jews  in  a  state  of  disobedience,  was 
the  consequence  of  the  determination  of  God  to  leave  them  to  them- 
selves, why  should  God  still  find  fault  ?  If  they  had  become  obdurate  by 
the  judicial  withholding  of  his  grace,  why  should  the  Jews  still  be 
blamed,  since  his  will  had  not  been  resisted,  but  accomplished  ?  If  this 
be  the  sense  of  the  objection,  then  the  import  of  the  apostle's  answer 
will  be,  that  it  is  both  perverse  and  wicked  for  a  nation  justly  given  up 
to  obduracy,  "  to  reply  against  God,"  or  "  debate"  the  case  with  him ;  and 
that  it  ought  silently  at  least  to  submit  to  its  penal  derehction,  recollect- 
ing that  God  has  an  absolute  power  over  nations,  not  only  to  raise  them 
to  peculiar  honours  and  privileges,  and  to  take  them  away,  as  "  the  potter 
has  power  over  the  clay  to  make  one  vessel  to  honour,  and  another  to 
dishonour ;"  but  to  leave  them  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  their  sins,  that 
his  judgments  may  be  the  more  conspicuous.  That  this  is  a  better 
and  more  consistent  sense  than  that  forced  upon  these  words  by  Cal- 
vinistic  commentators,  may  be  freely  admitted;  but  it  is  not  wholly 
satisfactory. 

For,  1.  One  sees  not  what  can  be  expected  from  a  people  judicially 
given  up,  but  a  "  replying  against  God  ;"  or  what  end  is  to  be  answered 
by  taking  any  pains  to  teach  a  people,  in  this  hopeless  case,  not  "  to 
reply  against  God,"  but  to  suffer  his  judgments  in  silence. 

2.  As  little  discoverable,  if  this  be  the  meaning,  is  the  appropriate- 
ness of  the  apostle's  allusion  to  the  parable  of  the  potter  in  Jeremiah,^ 
chap,  xviii.  There  ahnighty  God  declares  his  absolute  power  over 
nations  to  give  them  what  form  and  condition  he  pleases ;  but  still 
under  these  rules,  that  he  repents  of  the  evil  which  he  threatens  against 
wicked  nations,  when  they  repent,  and  withdraws  his  blessings  from 

2 


318  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

them  when  they  are  abused.  But  this  illustration  is  surely  not  appro- 
priate to  the  case  of  a  nation  given  up  to  final  obduracy,  because  the 
parable  of  the  potter  supposes  the  time  of  trial,  as  to  such  nations,  not 
yet  passed.  "  O  house  of  Israel,  cannot  I  do  with  you  as  this  potter  ? 
saith  the  Lord.  Behold,  as  the  clay  is  in  the  potter's  hand,  so  are  ye 
in  mine  hand,  O  house  of  Israel.  At  what  instant  I  shall  speak  con- 
cerning a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  pluck  up,  and  to  pul"! 
down,  and  to  destroy  it ;  if  that  nation,  against  whom  I  have  pro*- 
nounced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do 
unto  them.  And  at  what  instant  I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation  and 
concerning  a  kingdom,  to  build  and  to  plant  it ;  if  it  do  evil  in  my  sighfe, 
that  it  obey  not  my  voice,  then  I  will  repent  of  the  good,  wherewith  I 
said  I  would  benefit  them."  There  is  here  no  allusion  to  nations  being 
kept  in  a  state  of  judicial  dereliction  and  obduracy,  m  order  to  make  their 
punishment  more  conspicuous. 

3.  When  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  potter  making  of  the  "same 
lump,  one  vessel  to  honour  and  another  to  disJionour"  the  last  term 
does  not  fully  apply  to  the  state  of  a  people  devoted  to  inevitable  de- 
struction. It  is  true,  that  in  a  following  verse  he  speaks  of  "  vessels  of 
icrath  fitted  to  destruction ;"  but  that  is  in  another  view  of  the  case  of 
the  Jews,  as  we  shall  immediately  show ;  nor  does  he  affirm  that  they 
were  "  fitted  to  destruction"  by  God.  There  he  speaks  of  what  men 
fit  themselves  for ;  or  that  fitness  for  the  inflicfion  of  the  Divine  wrath 
upon  them,  which  they  themselves,  by  their  perverseness,  create. — 
Here  he  speaks  of  an  act  of  God,  using  the  figure  of  a  potter  forming 
some  vessels  "  to  honour,  others  to  dishonour."  But  dishonour  is  not 
destruction.  No  potter  makes  vessels  to  destroy  them ;  and  we  may 
be  certain,  that  when  Jeremiah  went  down  to  the  potter's  house,  to  see 
him  work  the  clay  upon  "  the  wheel,"  that  the  potter  was  not  employed 
in  forming  vessels  to  destroy  them.  On  the  contrary,  says  the  prophet, 
when  the  lump  of  clay  was  "  marred  in  his  hand ;"  so  that  not  for  want 
of  skill  in  himself,  but  of  proper  quality  in  the  clay,  it  took  not  the  form 
he  designed,  of  the  same  lump  he  made  "  another  vessel,  as  it  seemed 
good  to  the  potter  to  make  it ;" — a  meaner  vessel,  as  the  inferior  qua'- 
lity  or  temper  of  the  clay  admitted,  instead  of  that  finer  and  more  orna- 
mental form  which  it  would  not  take.  The  apphcation  of  this  was 
natural  and  easy  to  the  house  of  Israel.  It  had  become  a  lump  of  mar- 
red clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter,  which  answered  not  to  his  design, 
and  yielded  not  to  his  will.  This  illustrated  the  case  of  the  Jews  pre- 
vious to  the  captivity  of  Babylon :  they  were  marred  in  his  hand,  they 
were  not  answering  the  design  for  which  he  made  them  a  people  ;  but 
then  the  potter  gave  the  stubborn  clay  another,  though  a  baser  form, 
and  did  not  cast  it  away  from  him  :  he  put  the  Jews  into  the  condition 
of  slaves  and  captives  in  a  strange  land,  and  reduced  them  from  their 


SECOJVD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  319 

honourable  rank  among  the  nations.  This  might  have  been  averted  by 
their  repentance  ;  but  when  the  clay  became  utterly  "  marred,"  it  was 
turned  into  this  inferior  and  less  honourable  form  and  state.  But  all 
this  was  not  excision ;  not  destruction.  The  proceeding  was  correc- 
tive, as  well  as  punitive ;  it  brought  them  to  repentance  in  Babylon ; 
and  God  "  repented  him  of  the  evil."  The  potter  took  even  that  vessel 
which  had  been  made  unto  dishonour  for  seventy  years,  and  made  of  it 
again  "  a  vessel  unto  honour,"  by  restoring  the  polity  and  Church  rela- 
tion of  the  Jews. 

4.  The  interpretation  to  which  these  objections  are  made,  also  sup- 
poses that  the  body  of  the  Jewish  nation  had  arrived  at  a  state  of  dere- 
liction already.  But  this  epistle  was  written  several  years  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  although  the  threatening  had  gone  forth, 
as  to  the  dereliction  and  "  hardening"  of  the  perseveringty  impenitent, 
it  is  plain,  from  the  labours  of  the  apostle  himself  to  convert  the  Jews 
every  where,  and  from  his  ^^  prayers,  that  Israel  might  be  saved," 
chap.  X,  1  ;  that  he  did  not  consider  them,  as  yet  at  least,  in  this 
condition ;  though  most  of  them,  and  especially  those  in  Judea,  were 
hastening  to  it. 

Let  us  then  take  a  view  of  this  part  of  the  apostle's  discourse,  in 
some  respects  different.  The  objecting  Jew,  upon  the  apostle  having 
stated  that  God  shows  mercy,  or  special  favour  to  whom  he  will,  and 
selects  out  of  the  mass  of  sinners  whom  he  pleases,  for  marked  and 
eminent  punishment,  says,  "  Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  ?"  "  Why  does 
he,  by  you,  his  messenger,  allowing  you  your  apostolic  commission, 
continue  to  reprove  and  blame  the  Jews  ?  for  who  hath  resisted  his  will  ?" 
According  to  your  own  doctrine,  he  chooses  the  Gentiles  and  rejects 
us  ;  his  will  is  accomplished,  not  resisted :  "  why  then  doth  he  still  find 
fault  ?"  We  may  grant  that  the  objection  of  the  Jew  goes  upon  the 
Calvinistic  view  of  sovereignty  and  predestination,  and  the  shutting  out 
of  all  conditions ;  but  then  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  it  is  the  objec- 
tion of  a  perverse  and  unbelieving  Jew ;  and  that  it  is  refuted,  not  con- 
ceded, by  the  apostle  ;  for  he  proceeds  wholly  to  cut  ofi*  all  ground  and 
pretence  of  "  replying  against  God,"  by  his  reference  to  the  parable  of 
the  potter  in  Jeremiah.  This  reference,  according  to  the  view  we  have 
already  given  of  that  parable,  shows,  1.  That  "the  vessel"  was  not 
made  "  unto  dishonour,"  until  the  clay  of  which  it  was  formed,  had  been 
"  marred  in  the  hand  of  the  potter  ;"  that  is,  not  until  trial  being  made, 
it  did  not  conform  to  his  design  ;  did  not  work  according  to  the  pattern 
in  his  mind.  This  is  immediately  explained  by  the  prophet ;  the  nation 
did  not  "  repent,"  and  "  turn  from  its  wickedness,"  and  therefore  God 
dealt  whh  them  "  as  seemed  good"  to  him.  Thus,  in  the  time  of  the 
apostle,  the  Jewish  nation  was  the  clay  marred  in  the  hands  of  God. — 
From  its  stubbornness  and  want  of  temper,  it  had  not  conformed  to  his 


320  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

design  of  bringing  it  to  the  honourable  form  of  a  Christian  Church,  in 
association  with  the  Gentiles.  It  was  therefore  made  "  a  vessel  unto 
dishonour,"  unchurched,  and  disowned  of  God,  as  its  forefathers  had 
been  in  Babylon.  This  was  the  dishonoured,  degraded  condition,  of  all 
the  unbelieving  Jews  in  the  apostle's  day,  although  the  destruction  of 
their  city,  and  temple,  and  polity,  had  not  taken  place.  They  were 
rejected  from  being  the  visible  Church  of  God  from  the  rending  of  the 
veil  of  the  temple,  or  at  least,  from  the  day  of  pentecost,  when  God 
visibly  took  possession  of  his  new  spiritual  Church,  by  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  But  all  this  was  their  own  ^^ fault ;"  and  therefore, 
notwithstanding  the  objection  of  the  perverse  Jew,  "fault"  might  be 
found  with  them  who  refused  the  glory  of  a  higher  Church  estate 
than  that  which  their  circumcision  formerly  gave ;  and  which  had 
been  so  long  and  so  affectionately  offered  to  them;  with  men  who, 
not  only  would  not  enter  "  the  kingdom  of  God"  themselves,  but  at- 
tempted  to  hinder  even  the  Gentiles  from  entering  in,  as  far  as  lay  in 
their  power. 

2.  The  reference  to  the  parable  of  the  potter  served  to  silence  their 
"  replying  against  God"  also  ;  because,  in  the  interpretation  which 
Jeremiah  gives  of  that  parable,  he  represents  even  the  vessel  formed 
unto  dishonour,  out  of  the  mass  which  was  "  marred  in  the  hand  of  the 
potter,"  as  still  within  the  reach  of  the  Divine  favour,  upon  repentance  ; 
and  so  the  conduct  of  God  to  the  Jews,  instead  of  proceeding  as  the  Jew 
in  his  objection  supposes,  upon  rigid  predestinarian  and  unconditional 
grounds,  left  their  state  still  in  their  own  hands  :  they  had  no  need  to 
remain  vessels  of  dishonour,  since  the  Christian  Church  was  still  open 
to  them,  with  its  higher  than  Jewish  honours.  The  word  of  the  Lord, 
by  his  prophet,  immediately  on  his  having  visited  the  potter's  house, 
declares  that  if  a  nation  "  repent,"  he  will  repent  of  the  evil  designed 
against,  or  brought  upon  it.  The  Jews  in  Babylon,  although  they 
were  there  in  the  form  of  dishonoured  vessels^  did  repent ;  and  of 
that  dishonoured  mass  "  vessels  of  honour"  were  again  made,  at  their 
restoration  to  their  own  land.  Instead  of  replying  against  God,  they 
bowed  to  his  judgments  in  silence  ;  and,  as  we  read  in  the  prayer  of 
Daniel,  confessed  them  just.  Every  Jew  had  this  option  when  the 
apostle  wrote,  and  has  it  now  ;  and  therefore  St.  Paul  does  not  here  call 
upon  the  Jews,  as  persons  hardened  and  derelict  of  God,  to  be  silent, 
and  own  the  justice  of  God ;  but  as  persons  whose  silent  submission 
would  be  the  first  step  to  their  recovery.  Nor  will  they  always,  even 
as  a  people,  remain  vessels  of  dishonour  ;  but  be  formed  again  on  the 
potter's  wheel  as  vessels  of  honour  and  glory,  of  which  the  return 
from  Babylon  was  probably  a  type.  The  object  of  the  apostle  was, 
therefore,  to  silence  a  rebellious  and  perverse  replying  against  God,  by 
producing  a  conviction,  both   of  his  sovereign  right  to  dispense  his 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  321 

favours  as  he  pleases,  and  of  his  justice  in  inflicting  punishments  upon 
those  who  set  themselves  against  his  designs;  and  thus  to  bring  the 
Jews  to  repentance. 

3.  What  follows  verse  22  serves  farther,  and  by  another  view,  to 
silence  the  objecting  Jew.  It  was  true,  that  the  body  of  the  Jewish 
people  in  Judea,  and  their  polity  would  be  destroyed :  our  Lord  had 
predicted  it ;  and  the  apostles  frequently,  but  tenderly,  advert  to  it. 
This  prediction  did  not,  however,  prove  that  the  Jews  were,  at  the  time 
the  apostle  wrote,  generally,  in  a  state  of  entire  and  hopeless  derelic- 
tion ;  or  the  apostle  would  not  so  earnestly  have  sought,  and  so  fervently 
have  prayed  for  their  salvation.  Nor  did  that  event  itself  prove,  that 
those  who  still  remained,  and  to  this  day  remain,  were  given  up  entirely 
by  God ;  for  if  so,  why  should  the  Church  have  been,  in  all  ages, 
taught  to  look  for  their  restoration ;  no  time  being  fixed,  and  no  signs 
estabhshed,  to  enable  us  to  conclude  that  the  dereliction  had  been  taken 
off?  The  temporal  punishment  of  the  Jews  of  Judea  had  no  connec- 
tion with  the  question  of  their  salvabihty  as  a  people.  To  this  sad 
national  event,  however,  the  apostle  adverts,  in  the  next  verses. — • 
"  What,"  or  beside,  "  if  God,  willing  to  show  his  wrath,  and  to  make 
his  power  known,  endured  with  much  long  suffering,  the  vessels  of 
wrath  fitted  to  destruction :  and  that  he  might  make  known  the  riches 
of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  had  before  prepared  to 
glory,  even  us,  whom  he  hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of 
the  Gentiles.  As  he  saith  also  in  Osee,  I  will  call  them  my  people,  who 
were  not  my  people,"  &;c,  ver.  22-25.  The  apostle  does  not  state  his 
conclusion,  but  leaves  it  to  be  understood.  He  intended  it  manifestly, 
farther  to  silence  the  perverse  objections  of  the  Jews ;  and  he  gives  it 
as  a  proof,  not  of  sovereignty  alone,  but  of  sovereignty  and  justice ; 
sovereign  mercy  to  the  Gentiles ;  but  justice  to  the  Jews  :  as  though  he 
had  said,  this  procedure  is  also  righteous,  and  leaves  no  room  to  reply 
against  God. 

The  metaphor  of  "  vessels"  is  still  carried  on  ;  but  by  "  vessels  of  dis- 
honour, formed  by  the  potter,"  and  "  vessels  of  wrath,  fitted  for  destruc- 
tion," he  does  not  mean  vessels  in  the  samei  condition ;  but  in  different 
conditions.  This  is  plain,  from  the  difference  of  expression  adopted : 
"  vessels  unto  dishonour"  and  "  vessels  of  wrath  ;"  but  as  the  apostle's 
reasoning  is  evidently  influenced  by  the  reference  he  has  made  to  the 
parables  of  the  potter,  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  chapters  of  Jere- 
miah, we  must  again  refer  to  that  prophecy  for  illustration.  In  all  the 
examples  which,  in  this  discourse,  St.  Paul  takes  out  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, it  has  been  justly  observed  by  critics,  that  he  quotes  briefly,  and 
only  so  as  to  give  to  the  Jews,  who  were  well  acquainted  with  their 
Scriptures,  the  key  to  the  whole  context  in  which  the  passages  stand  to 
which  he  directs  their  attention.     So  in  the  verses  before  us,  by  refer- 

Vol.  H.  21  . 


322  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ring  to  the  potter  forming  the  vessels  on  the  wheel,  he  directs  them  to 
the  whole  section  of  prophecy,  of  which  that  is  the  introduction.  By 
examining  this  it  will  be  found,  that  the  prophet,  in  delivering  his  mes- 
sage, makes  use  of  the  work  of  the  potter  for  illustration,  in  two  states, 
and  for  two  purposes.  The  first  we  have  explained : — the  giving  to 
the  mass,  marred  in  the  hands  of  the  potter,  another  form ;  which  ex- 
pressed that  dishonoured,  and  humbled  state,  in  which  the  Jews,  both 
for  'punishment  and  correction,  were  placed  under  captivity  in  Baby- 
lon. But  connected  with  the  humbling  of  this  proud  people,  by  rejecting 
them  for  seventy  years,  as  God's  visible  Church,  was  also  the  terrible 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  temple  itself.  With  reference  to  this, 
the  prophet,  in  the  nineteenth  chapter,  which  is  a  continuation  of  the 
eighteenth,  receives  this  command,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Go  and  get 
a  potter'' s  earthen  bottle,  and  take  of  the  ancients  of  the  people,  and  the 
ancients  of  the  priests ;  and  go  forth  unto  the  valley  of  the  sons  of  Hin- 
nom,  which  is  by  the  entry  of  the  east  gate,  and  proclaim  there  the 
words  that  I  shall  tell  thee,  and  say,  Hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord,  O 
kings  of  Judah,  and  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  :  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  the  God  of  Israel ;  behold  I  will  bring  evil  upon  this  place,  the 
which  whosoever  heareth,  his  ears  shall  tingle."  And  then  having 
delivered  his  awful  message  in  various  forms  of  malediction,  he  is  thus 
commanded,  in  verse  10,  "  Then  shalt  thou  break  the  bottle  in  the  sight 
of  the  men  that  go  with  thee,  and  shalt  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts ;  even  so  will  I  break  this  people  and  this  city,  as  one 
breaketh  a  potter^ s  vessel,  that  cannot  be  made  whole  again."  As  this 
stands  in  the  same  section  of  prophecy  as  the  parable  of  the  forming  of 
vessels  out  of  clay  by  the  potter,  can  it  be  doubted  to  what  the  apostle 
refers  when  he  speaks,  not  only  of  "  vessels  made  unto  dishonour,"  but 
also  of  ^^  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction?"  The  potter's  earthen 
bottle,  broken  by  Jeremiah,  was  "  a  vessel  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruc- 
tion," though  not  in  the  mtention  of  the  potter  who  formed  it ;  and  the 
breaking  or  destruction  of  it  represented,  as  the  prophet  himself  says, 
the  destruction  of  the  city,  temple,  and  polity  of  the  Jews,  by  the  inva- 
sion of  the  forces  of  the  king  of  Babylon.  The  coming  destruction  of 
the  temple,  city,  and  polity  of  the  Jews  by  the  Romans  was  thereby  fitly 
represented  by  the  same  figure  in  words,  that  is,  the  destruction  of  an 
earthen  vessel  by  violent  fracture,  as  the  former  calamity  had  been  re- 
presented by  it  in  action.  Farther,  the  circumstances  of  these  two  great 
national  punishments  signally  answer  to  each  other.  In  the  former, 
the  Jews  ceased  to  be  the  visible  Church  of  God  for  seventy  years ;  in 
the  latter,  they  have  been  also  unchurched  for  many  ages.  Their  tem- 
porary rejection  as  the  visible  Church  of  God  when  they  were  taken 
into  captivity  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  was  marked,  also,  by  circumstances 
of  severe  and  terrible  vengeance,  by  invasion,  and  the  destruction  of  their 
3 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  323 

political  state.  Their  longer  rejection,  as  God's  Church,  was  also  ac- 
companied by  judgments  of  the  same  kind,  and  by  their  more  terrible 
excision  and  dispersion,  as  a  body  politic.  As  the  prophet  refers  to 
both  circumstances,  so,  in  his  usual  manner  of  teaching  by  action,  he 
illustrates  both  by  symbols.  The  first,  by  the  work  of  the  potter  on  the 
wheels  ;  the  second,  by  taking  "  an  earthen  bottle,  a  vessel  out  of  the 
house  of  the  potter,  and  destroying  it  before  the  eyes  of  the  ancients  of 
the  people  and  the  ancients  of  the  priests."  The  apostle,  in  like  man- 
ner, refers  to  both  events,  and  makes  use  of  the  same  symbols  verbally. 
The  "  dishonoured"  state  of  the  Jews,  as  no  longer  acknowledged  by 
God  as  his  people,  since  they  would  not  enter  the  new  Church,  the 
New  Jerusalem,  by  faith,  is  shown  by  the  vessel  formed  by  the  potter 
unto  "dishonour;"  the  collateral  calamities  brought  upon  their  city, 
temple,  and  nation,  arising  out  of  their  enormous  sins,  is  shown  by  allu- 
sion to  the  prophet's  breaking  another  vessel,  an  earthen  bottle.  This 
temporal  destruction  of  the  Jews  by  the  Roman  mvasion,  was  also 
figurative  of  the  future  and  final  punishment  of  all  persevering  unbe- 
lievers. As  to  the  Jews  of  that  day  hving  in  Judea,  the  nation  of  the 
Jews,  the  punishment  figured  by  the  broken  vessel  was  final,  for  they 
were  destroyed  by  the  sword,  and  wasted  by  slavery  ;  and  as  to  all  who 
persevered  in  unbeUef,  the  future  punishment  in  eternity  would  be  final 
and  hopeless,  "  as  one  breaketh  a  potter's  vessel  that  cannot  be  made 
whole  again  .•"  a  sufficient  proof  that  St.  Paul  is  not  speaking  of  the 
vessel  in  its  slate  of  clay,  on  the  potter's  wheel,  which  might  be  made 
whole  again  ;  and,  therefore,  the  punishment  figured  by  that  was  not 
final,  but  corrective  ;  for  the  Jews,  though  made  vessels  unto  dishonour 
in  Babylon,  were  again  made  vessels  of  honour  on  their  restoration  ; 
and  the  Jews  now,  though  for  a  much  longer  period  existing  as  "  ves- 
sels of  dishonour,"  shall  be  finally  restored,  brought  into  the  Church 
of  Christ,  acknowledged  to  be  his  people,  as  the  believing  Gentiles  are, 
and  thus,  united  with  them,  again  be  made  "vessels  unto  honour." 

The  application  of  the  apostle's  words,  in  the  verses  just  commented 
upon,  as  intended  to  silence  the  "  replying"  of  the  Jews  against  God,  is 
now  obvious.  They  could  urge  no  charge  upon  God  for  making  them 
vessels  of  dishonour  by  taking  away  their  Church  state,  for  that  was 
their  own  fault ;  they  were  "  marred  in  his  hands,"  and  they  yielded 
not  to  his  design.  But  their  case  was  no  more  hopeless  than  that  of 
the  Jews  in  Babylon  ;  they  might  still  be  again  made  vessels  of  honour. 
And  then,  as  to  the  case  of  the  "  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction," 
those  stubborn  Jews  who  were  bringing  upon  themselves  the  Roman 
invasion,  with  the  destruction  of  tlieir  city  and  nation  ;  and  all  perverse, 
unbeheving  Jews,  who  continued,  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  to  reject 
the  Gospel ;  although  their  approaching  punishment  would  be  final  and 
remediless,  yet  was  there  no  ground  for  them  ''  to  reply  against  God'* 

2 


324  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

on  that  account,  as  though  this  dispensation  of  wrath  were  the  result 
of  unconditional  predestination  and  rigid  sovereignty.  On  the  contrary, 
it  was  an  act  of  pure  and  unquestionable  justice,  which  the  apostle 
proves  by  its  being  brought  upon  themselves  by  their  own  sins  ;  and  by 
the  circumstance  that  it  did  not  take  place  until  after  God  had  "  en- 
dured them  with  much  long  suffering." 

1.  The  destruction  was  brought  upon  themselves  by  their  own  sins. 
This  is  manifest  from  all  the  instances  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which 
their  sins  are  charged  upon  them  as  the  cause  of  their  calamities,  and 
which  need  not  be  quoted  ;  and  also  from  the  expression  in  the  text 
before  us,  vessels  ^^ fitted  to  destruction."  The  word  might  as  well  have 
been  rendered  "  adapted  to  destruction,"  which  fitness  or  congruity  for 
pimishment  can  be  produced  only  by  sin  ;  and  this  sin  must  have  been 
their  own  choice  and  fault,  unless  we  should  blasphemously  make  God 
the  author  of  sin,  which  but  a  few  Calvinistic  divines  have  been  bold 
enough  to  affirm.  Nor  are  we  to  overlook  the  change  of  speech  which 
the  apostle  uses  {Wolfius  in  loc.)  when  speaking  of  "the  vessels  of 
mercy."  Their  "  preparation  unto  glory,"  is  ascribed  expressly  to 
God, — "  which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto  glory  ;"  but  of  the  vessels 
of  wrath  the  apostle  simply  says  passively,  "fitted  to  destruction,"  leaving 
the  agent  to  be  inferred  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  and  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Scripture,  which  uniformly  ascribes  the  sins  of  men  to  them- 
selves, and  their  punishment  to  their  sins. 

2.  The  justice  of  God's  proceeding  as  to  the  incorrigible  Jews  is  still 
more  strongly  marked  by  the  declaration,  that  these  vessels  of  wrath 
fitted,  or  adapted  to  destruction,  were  "  endured  with  much  lofig  suffer- 
ing."  To  say  that  their  punishment  was  delayed  to  render  it  more 
conspicuous,  after  they  had  been  left  or  given  up  by  God,  would  be  no 
impeachment  of  God's  justice ;  but  it  is  much  mote  consonant  to  the 
tenor  of  Scripture  to  consider  the  "  long  suffering"  here  mentioned,  as 
exercised  previously  to  their  being  given  up  to  the  hardness  of  their 
heartSy  like  Pharaoh,  and  even  after  they  were,  in  a  rigid  construction 
of  just  severity,  "  fitted  for  destruction  :"  the  punishment  being  delayed 
to  afford  them  still  farther  opportunities  for  repentance.  The  barren 
tree,  in  our  Lord's  parable,  was  the  emblem  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  no  one  can  deny  that  after  the  Lord  had  come  for  many  years 
"  seeking  fruit  and  finding  none,"  this  fruitless  tree  was  "  fitted"  to  be 
cut  down  ;  and  yet  it  was  "  endured  with  much  long  suffering."  This 
view  is,  also,  farther  supported  by  the  import  of  the  word  "  long  suflfer- 
ing,"  and  its  use  in  the  New  Testament.  Long  suffering  is  a  mode  of 
mercy^  and  the  reason  of  its  exercise  is  only  to  be  found  in  a  merciful 
intention.  Hence  "  goodness  and  forbearance,  and  long  suffering,"  are 
united  by  the  apostle,  in  another  part  of  this  epistle,  when  speaking  of 
these  very  Jews,  in  a  passage  which   may  be  considered  as  strictly 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  325 

parallel  with  that  before  us.  "  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his 
goodness  and  forbearance^  and  long  suffering  ;  not  knowing  that  the 
goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance  ?  But  after  thy  hardness  and 
impenitent  heart  treasurest  up  unto  thyself  wrath  againt  the  day  of 
wrath,  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  ;"  which 
"  wrath"  the  long  suffering  of  God  was  exercised  to  prevent,  by  leading 
them  "to  repentance,"  Rom.  ii,  4,  5.  So  also  St.  Peter  teaches  us, 
that  the  end  of  God's  long  suffering  to  men  is  a  merciful  one  :  he  is 
"  long  suffering  to  us-ward,  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that 
all  should  come  to  repentance.''^  The  passage  in  question,  therefore, 
cannot  be  understood  of  persons  derelict  and  forsaken  of  God,  as  though 
the  long  sufTering  of  God,  in  enduring  them,  were  a  part  of  the  process 
of  "  showing  his  wrath  and  making  his  power  known."  Doddridge,  a 
moderate  Calvinist,  paraphrases  it :  "  What  if  God,  resolving"  at  last 
*'  to  manifest  his  wrath,  and  make  his  power  known,  hath,"  in  the  mean, 
timef  "endured  with  much  long  suffering"  tJiose  who  shall  finally  appear 
to  he  "  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction  ?"  to  which  there  is  no 
objection,  provided  it  be  allowed  that  in  this  "  meantime'^  they  might 
have  repented  and  obtained  mercy. 

Thus  the  proceedings  of  God  as  to  the  Jews  shut  out  all  «  reply"  and 
"  debate"  with  God.  Nothing  was  unjust  in  his  conduct  to  the  impeni- 
tent  among  them,  for  they  were  "  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruc- 
tion," wicked  men,  justly  liable  to  it,  and  yet,  before  God  proceeded  to 
his  work  of  judgment,  he  endured  them  with  forbearance,  and  gave  them 
many  opportunities  of  coming  into  his  Church  on  the  new  election  of 
believers  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  And  as  to  this  election,  the  whole 
was  a  question  not  of  justice  but  of  grace,  and  God  had  the  unques- 
tionable  right  of  forming  a  new  believing  people,  "  not  of  the  Jews  only, 
but  also  of  the  Gentiles,"  and  of  filling  them,  as  "  vessels  of  honour," 
with  those  riches,  that  fulness  of  glory,  as  his  now  acknowledged 
Church,  for  which  he  had  "  afore  prepared  them"  by  faith,  the  only 
ground  of  their  admission  into  his  covenant.  The  remainder  of  the 
chapter,  on  which  we  have  commented,  contains  citations  from  the  pro- 
phecies, with  respect  to  the  salvation  of  the  "  remnant,"  of  the  believ- 
ing  Jews,  and  the  calhng  of  the  Gentiles.  The  tenth  and  eleventh 
chapters  which  continue  the  discourse,  need  no  particular  examination  ; 
but  will  be  found  to  contain  nothing  but  what  most  obviously  refers  to 
the  collective  rejection  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  collective  election 
of  the  "  remnant"  of  believing  Jews,  along  with  all  beheving  Gentiles, 
into  the  visible  Church  of  God. 

We  have  now  considered  this  discourse  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  with 
reference  to  the  question  of  personal  or  collective  election,  and  find  that 
it  can  be  interpreted  only  of  the  latter.  Let  us  consider  it,  secondly, 
with  reference  to  the  question  of  unconditional  election,  a  doctrine  which 

2 


326-  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

we  shall  certainly  find  in  it ;  but  in  a  sense  very  different  from  that  in 
which  it  is  held  by  Calvinists. 

By  unconditional  election,  divines  of  this  class  understand  an  election 
of  persons  to  eternal  life  without  respect  to  their  faith  or  obedience, 
these  qualities  in  them  being  supposed  necessarily  to  follow  as  conse- 
quences of  their  election ;  by  unconditional  reprobation,  the  counterpart 
of  the  former  doctrine,  is  meant  a  non-election  or  rejection  of  certain 
persons  from  eternal  salvation  ;  unbelief  and  disobedience  following  this 
rejection  as  necessary  consequences.  Such  kind  of  election  and  rejec- 
tion has  no  place  in  this  chapter,  although  the  subject  of  it  is  the  elec- 
tion and  rejection  of  bodies  of  men,  which  is  a  case  more  unfettered 
ivith  conditions  than  any  other.  We  have,  indeed,  in  it  several  instances 
of  unconditional  election.  Such  was  that  of  the  descendants  of  Isaac 
to  be  God's  visible  Church,  in  preference  to  those  of  Ishmael ;  such  was 
that  of  Jacob,  to  the  exclusion  of  Esau ;  which  election  was  declared 
when  the  children  were  yet  in  the  womb,  before  they  had  done  "  good 
or  evil ;"  so  that  the  blessing  of  the  special  covenant  did  not  descend 
upon  the  posterity  of  Jacob  because  of  any  righteousness  in  Jacob,  nor 
was  it  taken  away  from  the  descendants  of  Esau  because  of  any  wick- 
edness in  their  progenitor.  In  like  manner,  when  almighty  God  de- 
termined no  longer  to  found  his  visible  Church  upon  natural  descent 
from  Abraham  in  the  hne  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  nor  in  any  hne  according 
to  the  flesh ;  but  to  make  faith  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  the  gate  of  ad- 
mission into  this  privilege,  he  acted  according  to  the  same  sovereign 
pleasure.  It  is  not  impossible  to  conceive  that  he  might  have  carried 
on  his  saving  purposes  among  the  Gentiles  through  Christ,  without  set- 
ting up  a  visible  Church  among  them  ;  as,  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
he  carried  on  such  purposes  in  the  Gentile  nations,  (unless  we  suppose 
that  all  but  the  Jews  perished,)  without  collecting  them  into  a  body,  and 
making  himself  their  head  as  his  Church,  and  calling  himself  "their 
God"  by  special  covenant,  and  by  visible  and  constant  signs  acknow- 
ledging them  to  be  "  his  people."  Greatly  inferior  would  have  been  the 
mercy  to  the  Gentile  world  had  this  plan  been  adopted ;  and,  as  far  as 
it  appears  to  us,  the  system  of  Christianity  would  have  been  much  less 
efficient.  We  are,  indeed,  bound  to  believe  this,  since  Divine  wisdom  and 
goodness  have  determined  on  another  mode  of  procedure ;  but  still  it  is 
conceivable.  On  the  contrary,  the  purpose  of  God  was  now  not  only  to 
continue  a  visible  Church  in  the  world,  but  to  extend  it  in  its  visible, 
collective,  and  organized  form,  into  all  nations.  Yet  this  resolve  rested 
on  no  goodness  in  those  who  were  to  be  subjects  of  it :  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  were  "  concluded  under  sin,"  and  "  the  whole  world  was  guilty 
before  God."  As  this  plan  is  carried  into  effect  by  extending  itself  into 
different  nations,  we  see  the  same  sovereign  pleasure.  A  man  of  Mace- 
donia appears  to  Paul  in  a  vision  by  nisht,  and  cries,  "  Come  over  and 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  327 

help  us ;"  but  we  have  no  reason  to  beheve  that  the  Macedonians  were 
better  than  other  Gentiles,  although  they  were  elected  to  the  enjoyment 
of  the  privileges  and  advantages  of  evangelical  ordinances.  So  in 
modern  times  parts  of  Hindostan  have  been  elected  to  receive  the  Gos- 
pel, and  yet  its  inhabitants  presented  nothing  more  worthy  of  this  elec 
tion  than  the  people  of  Tibet,  or  Cahfornia,  who  have  not  yet  been 
elected.  We  call  this  sovereignty ;  not  indeed  in  the  sense  of  many 
Calvinistic  writers,  who  appear  to  understand  by  the  sovereign  acts  ot 
God  those  procedures  which  he  adopts  only  to  show  that  he  has  the 
power  to  execute  them ;  but  because  the  reasons  of  them,  whether  they 
are  reasons  of  judgment,  or  wisdom,  or  mercy,  are  hidden  from  us — 
eitlier  that  we  have  no  immediate  interest  in  them,  or  that  they  are  too 
deep  and  ample  for  our  comprehension,  or  because  it  is  an  important 
lesson  for  men  to  be  taught  to  bow  with  reverent  submission  to  his  regal 
prerogatives.  This  is  the  unconditional  election  and  non-election  taught 
by  the  apostle  in  this  chapter ;  but  what  we  deny  is,  that  either  the 
spiritual  blessings  connected  with  religious  privileges  follow  as  necessaiy 
consequences  from  this  election ;  or  that  unbeUef,  disobedience,  and 
eternal  ruin  follow  in  the  same  manner  from  non-election.  Of  both 
these  opinions  the  apostle's  discourse  itself  furnishes  abundant  refutation. 

Let  us  take  the  instances  of  election.  The  descendants  of  Abraham 
in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  were  elected ;  but  true  faith,  and  obe- 
dience,  and  salvation,  did  not  follow  as  infallible  consequents  of  that 
election.  On  the  contrar>^,  the  "  Jew  outwardly,"  and  the  «  Jew  in- 
wardly,"  were  always  distinguished  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham's  faith,  not  the  children  of  Abraham's  body,  were  the 
true  « Israel  of  God."  Again,  the  Gentiles  were  at  length  elected  to 
be  the  visible  Church  of  God ;  but  obedience  and  salvation  did  not  fol- 
low as  necessary  consequents  of  this  election.  On  the  contrary,  many 
Gentiles  chosen  to  special  rehgious  privileges  have,  in  all  ages,  neglected 
the  great  salvation,  and  have  perished,  though  professing  the  name  of 
Christ ;  and  in  that  pure  age  in  which  St.  Paul  wrote,  when  compara- 
tively few  Gentiles  entered  the  Church  but  with  a  sincere  faith  in  Christ, 
he  warns  all  of  the  danger  of  excision  for  unbelief  and  disobedience  : — 
"  Tliou  standest  by  faith  ;  be  not  high  minded,  but  fear."  "  For  if  God 
spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee." 
"  Toward  thee  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  his  goodness ;  otherwise 
thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off."  Certain,  therefore,  it  is,  that  although  this 
collective  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  religious  privileges,  and  to  be- 
come the  visible  Church  of  God,  be  unconditional,  the  salvation  to 
which  these  privileges  were  designed  to  lead,  depends  upon  personal 
faith  and  obedience. 

Let  us  turn,  then,  to  the  instances  of  non-election  or  rejection ;  and 
here  it  will  be  found  that  unbelief,  disobedience,  and  punishment,  do  not 

2 


328  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

follow  as  infallible  consequents  of  this  dispensation.  Abraham  was 
greatly  interested  for  Ishmael,  and  obtained,  in  answer  to  his  prayer,  at 
least  temporal  promises  in  his  behalf,  and  in  that  of  his  posterity ;  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  conclude  from  any  thing  which  occurs  in  the 
sacred  writers,  that  his  Arabian  descendants  were  shut  out,  except  by 
their  own  choice  and  fault,  at  any  time,  from  the  hopes  of  salvation ; 
at  least  previous  to  their  embracing  the  imposture  of  Mohammed ;  for 
^f  so,  we  must  give  up  Job  and  his  friends  as  reprobates.  The  know- 
ledge of  the  true  God  existed  long  in  Arabia ;  and  "  Arabians"  were 
among  the  fruits  of  primitive  Christianity,  as  we  learn  from  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles. 

Nor  have  we  any  ground  to  conclude  that  the  Edomites,  as  such, 
ivere  excluded  from  the  mercies  of  God,  because  of  their  nourelection 
as  his  visible  Church.  Their  proximity  to  the  Jewish  nation  must  have 
served  to  preserve  among  them  a  considerable  degree  of  religious  know- 
ledge ;  and  their  continuance  as  a  people  for  many  ages  may  argue  at 
least  no  great  enormity  of  wickedness  among  them  ;  which  is  confirmed 
by  the  reasons  given  for  their  ultimate  destruction.  The  final  maledic- 
tion against  this  people  is  uttered  by  the  Prophet  Malachi : — "  Whereas 
Edom  saith.  We  are  impoverished,  but  we  will  return  and  build  the 
desolate  places ;  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  They  shall  build,  but  I 
will  throw  down ;  and  they  shall  call  them  the  border  of  wickedness, 
and  the  people  against  whom  the  Lord  hath  indignation  for  ever,"  i,  4. 
Thus  their  destruction  was  the  result  of  their  "  wickedness"  in  the  later 
periods  of  their  history ;  nor  have  we  any  reason  to  conclude  that  this 
was  more  inevitable  than  that  of  other  ancient  nations,  whom  God,  as  in 
the  case  of  Assyria,  called  to  repentance ;  but  who,  not  regarding  the 
call,  were  finally  destroyed.  That  the  Edomites  were  not,  in  more  an- 
cient  times,  the  objects  of  the  Divine  displeasure,  is  manifest  from  Deut. 
ii,  5,  where  it  is  recorded  that  God  commanded  the  Israelites,  "  Meddle 
not  with  them ;  for  I  will  not  give  you  of  their  land,  no,  not  so  much  as 
a  foot  breadth ;  because  I  have  given  Mount  Seir  unto  Esau  for  a  pos- 
session." They  also  outlived,  as  a  people,  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel ;  they 
continued  to  exist  when  the  two  tribes  were  carried  into  captivity  to 
Pabylon ;  and  about  the  year  of  the  world  3875,  or  129  before  the 
Christian  era,  John  Hircanus  entirely  subdued  them,  and  obliged  them 
to  incorporate  with  the  Jewish  nation  and  to  receive  religion.  They 
professed  consequently  the  same  faith,  and  were  thus  connected  with  the 
visible  Church  of  God.  (3) 

(3)  "  Having  conquered  the  Edomites,  or  Idiimeans,"  says  Prideaux,  "  he  re- 
duced them  to  this  necessity,  either  to  embrace  the  Jewish  religion,  or  else  to 
leave  the  country,  and  seek  new  dwellings  elsewhere  ;  whereon,  choosing  rather 
to  leave  their  idolatry  than  their  country,  they  all  becarfie  proselytes  to  the  Jewish 
religion,"  &c.  {Connpx.  vol.  iii,  pp.  365,  366.) 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  329 

We  come,  finally,  to  the  case  of  the  rejected  Jews  in  the  very  age  of 
the  apostles.  The  purpose  of  God,  as  we  have  seen,  was  to  abolish  the 
former  ground  on  which  his  visible  Church  had  for  so  many  ages  been 
built,  that  of  natural  descent  from  Abraham  by  Isaac  and  Jacob ;  but 
this  was  so  far  from  shutting  out  the  Jews  from  spiritual  blessings,  that 
though,  as  Jews,  they  were  now  denied  to  be  God's  Church,  yet  they 
were  all  invited  to  come  in  with  the  Gentiles,  or  rather  to  lead  the  way 
into  the  new  Church  established  on  the  new  principle  of  faith  in  Jesus,  as 
the  Christ.  Hence  the  apostles  were  commanded  to  "  begin  at  Jerusa- 
lem" to  preach  the  Gospel ;  hence  they  made  the  Jews  the  first  offer  in 
every  place  in  Asia  Minor,  and  other  parts  of  the  Roman  empire,  into 
which  they  travelled  on  the  same  blessed  errand.  Many  of  the  Jews 
accepted  the  call,  entered  into  the  Church  state  on  the  new  principle  on 
which  the  Church  of  Christ  was  now  to  be  elected,  and  hence  they  are 
called,  by  St.  Paul,  "the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace," 
Rom.  xi,  5,  and  "  the  election. '^  The  rest,  it  is  true,  are  said  to  have 
been  "  blinded  ;"  just  in  the  same  sense  as  Pharaoh  was  hardened.  He 
hardened  his  own  heart,  and  was  judicially  left  to  his  obduracy ;  they 
blinded  themselves  by  their  prejudices  and  worldliness  and  spiritual 
pride,  and  were  at  length  judicially  given  up  to  blindness.  But  then 
might  they  not  all  have  had  a  share  in  this  new  election  into  this  new 
Church  of  God  ?  Truly  every  one  of  them ;  for  thus  the  apostle  argues, 
Rom.  ix,  30-32,  "  What  shall  we  say  then  1  That  the  Gentiles,  which 
followed  not  after  righteousness,  have  attained  to  righteousness,  even 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith ;  but  Israel,  which  followed  after  the 
law  of  righteousness,  hath  not  attained  to  the  law  of  righteousness. 
Wherefore  1  Because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith,  but,  as  it  were, 
by  the  works  of  the  law."  And  thus  we  have  it  plainly  declared  that 
they  were  excluded  from  the  new  spiritual  Church  of  God,  not  by  any 
act  of  sovereignty,  not  by  any  decree  of  reprobation,  but  by  an  act  of 
their  own  :  they  rejected  the  doctrine  and  way  of  faith  ;  they  attained 
not  unto  righteousness,  because  they  sought  it  not  by  faith. 

The  collective  election  and  rejection  taught  in  this  chapter  is  not  then 
unconditional,  in  the  sense  of  the  Calvinists ;  and  neither  the  salvation 
of  the  people  elected,  nor  the  condemnation  of  the  people  rejected,  flows 
as  necessary  consequents  from  these  acts  of  the  Divine  sovereignty. 
They  are,  indeed,  mysterious  procedures;  for  doubtless  it  must  be 
allowed  that  they  place  some  portions  of  men  in  circumstances  more 
favoured  than  others ;  but  even  in  such  cases  God  has  shut  out  the 
charge  of  "  unrighteousness,^^  by  requiring  from  men  according  "  to 
what  they  have,  and  not  according  to  what  they  have  not,"  as  we  learn 
from  many  parts  of  Scripture  which  reveal  the  principles  of  the  Divine 
administration,  both  as  to  this  life  and  another ;  for  no  man  is  shut  out 
from  the  mercy  of  God,  but  by  his  own  fault.     He  has  connected  these 

2 


330  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

events  also  with  wise  and  gracious  general  plans,  as  to  the  human  race. 
They  are  not  acts  of  arbitrary  will,  or  of  caprice ;  they  are  acts  of 
"  wisdom  and  knowledge,"  the  mysterious  bearings  of  which  are  to  be 
•in  future  times  developed.  "  O  the  depth,  both  of  the  imsdom  and 
■knowledge  of  God !  how  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways 
past  finding  out !"  These  are  the  devout  expressions  with  which  St. 
Paul  concludes  this  discourse  ;  but  they  would  ill  apply  to  the  sovereign, 
arbitrary,  and  unconditional  reprobation  of  men  from  God's  mercies  in 
time  and  eternity,  on  the  principle  of  taking  some  and  leaving  others 
without  any  reason  in  themselves.  There  is  no  plan  in  this ;  no  wis- 
dom  ;  no  mystery ;  and  it  is  capable  of  no  farther  development  for  the 
instruction  and  benefit  of  the  world ;  for  that  which  rests  originally  on 
no  reason  but  solely  on  arbitrary  will,  is  incapable,  from  its  very  nature, 
of  becoming  the  component  part  of  a  deeply  laid,  and,  for  a  time,  mys- 
terious  plan,  which  is  to  be  brightened  into  manifest  wisdom,  and  to  ter- 
minate  in  the  good  of  mankind,  and  the  glory  of  God. 

The  only  argument  of  any  weight  which  is  urged  to  prove,  that  in 
the  election  spoken  of  in  this  discourse  of  St.  Paul,  individuals  are 
intended,  is,  that  though  it  should  be  allowed  that  the  apostle  is  speaking 
of  the  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  be  the  visible  Church  of  God ;  yet,  as 
none  are  acknowledged  by  him  to  be  his  true  Church,  except  true 
believers ;  therefore,  the  election  of  men  to  faith  and  eternal  life,  as 
individuals,  must  necessarily  be  included ;  or  rather,  is  the  main  thing 
spoken  of.  For  as  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  were  the  only  persons 
allowed  to  be  "  the  Israel  of  God"  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion ;  and  as,  upon  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  true  believers  only,  both 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  were  allowed  to  constitute  the  Church  of  Christ, 
the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  under  the  law  ;  and  genuine  Christians, 
■both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  under  the  Gospel,  are  "  the  election ;"  and 
^'the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace^''  mentioned  by  the  apostle. 

In  this  argument  truth  is  greatly  mixed  up  with  error,  which  a  few 
observations  will  disentangle. 

1.  It  is  a  mere  assumption,  that  the  spiritual  Israehtes,  under  the  law, 
in  opposition  to  the  Israelites  by  birth,  are  any  where  called  "  the  elec- 
tion ;"  and  "  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace ;"  or  even 
alluded  to  under  these  titles.  The  first  phrase  occurs  in  Romans  xi,  7, 
"  What  then  ?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he  seeketh  for ;  but 
the  election  hath  obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were  blinded."  Here  it  is 
evident  that  "  the  elcQtion"  means  the  Jews  of  that  daj^,  who  believed  in 
Christ,  in  opposition  to  "  the  rest,"  who  believed  not ;  in  other  words, 
"  the  election"  was  that  part  of  the  Jews,  who  had  been  chosen  into  the 
Christian  Church,  by  faith.  The  second  phrase  occurs  in  verse  5,  of 
the  same  chapter,  "  Even  so,  then,  at  this  present  time,  also,  there  is  a 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace ;"  where  the  same  class  of 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  331 

persons,  the  believing  Jews,  who  submitted  to  tlie  plan  of  election  into 
the  Church  by  "  grace^''  through  faith,  are  the  only  persons  spoken  of. 
Nor  are  these  terms  used  to  designate  the  believing  Gentiles ;  they 
belong  exclusively  to  the  Christianized  portion  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and 
as  the  contrary  assumption  is  without  any  foundation,  the  inferences 
drawn  from  it  are  imaginary. 

2.  It  is  true  that,  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Abraham  were  the  only  part  of  the  Israelites  who  were,  with 
reference  to  their  spiritual  and  eternal  state,  accepted  of  God  ;  but  it  is 
■not  true,  that  the  election  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  was  confined  to 
them.  With  reference  to  Esau  and  Jacob,  the  apostle  says,  Romzms 
ix,  11,  13,  "For  the  children  being  not  yet  bom,  neither  having 
done  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God,  according  to  election,  might 
stand,  not  of  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth  ;  it  was  said  unto  her,  The 
€lder  shall  serve  the  younger ;  as  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but 
Esau  have  I  hated."  The  "  election"  here  spoken  of,  or  God's  purpose 
to  elect,  relates  to  Jacob  being  chosen  in  preference  to  Esau ;  which 
election,  as  we  have  seen,  respected  the  descendants  of  Jacob.  Now, 
if  this  meant  the  election  of  the  pious  descendants  of  Jacob  only,  and 
not  his  natural  descendants ;  then  the  opposition  between  the  election 
of  the  progeny  of  Jacob,  and  the  non-election  of  the  progeny  of  Esau, 
is  destroyed  ;  and  there  was  no  reason  to  say,  "  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but 
Esau  have  I  hated,"  or  loved  less ;  but  the  pious  descendants  of  Jacob 
have  I  loved  and  elected ;  and  the  rest  I  have  not  loved,  and  therefore 
have  not  elected.  Some  of  the  Calvinistic  commentators  have  felt  this 
ffidiculty,  and  therefore  say,  that  these  cases  are  not  given  as  examples 
>of  the  election  and  reprobation  of  which  the  apostle  speaks ;  but  as 
illustrations  of  it.  If  considered  as  illustrations,  they  must  be  felt  to  be 
of  a  very  perplexing  kind  ;  for  how  the  preference  of  one  nation  to  an- 
other, when,  as  we  have  seen,  this  did  not  infallibly  secure  the  salva- 
tion of  the  more  favoured  nation,  nor  the  eternal  destruction  of  the  less 
favoured,  can  illustrate  the  election  of  individuals  to  eternal  life,  and  the 
reprobation  of  other  individuals  to  eternal  death,  is  difficult  to  conceive. 
But  they  are  manifestly  examples  of  that  one  election,  of  which  the 
apostle  speaks  throughout ;  and  not  illustrations  of  one  kind  of  election 
by  another.  They  are  the  instances  which  he  gives  in  proof  that  the 
election  of  the  believing  Jews  of  his  day  to  be,  along  with  the  believing 
Gentiles,  the  visible  Church  of  God,  and  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  after 
the  flesh,  was  not  contrary  to  the  promises  of  God  made  to  Abraham ; 
because  God  had,  in  former  times,  made  distinctions  between  the  natu- 
ral descendants  of  Abraham  as  to  Church  privileges,  without  any 
impeachment  of  his  faithfulness  to  his  word.  Again,  if  the  election  of 
which  the  apostle  speaks  were  that  of  pious  Jews  in  all  ages,  so  that  they 
alone  stood  in  a  Church  relation  to  God,  and  were  thus  the  only  Jews 

2 


332  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

in  covenant  with  him ;  how  could  he  speak  of  the  rejection  of  the  other 
portion  of  the  Jews  ?  Of  their  being  cut  off?  Of  the  covenants  "  per- 
taining" to  them?  They  could  not  be  rejected,  who  were  never 
received ;  nor  cut  off,  who  were  never  branches  in  the  stock ;  nor  have 
covenants  pertaining  to  them,  if  in  these  covenants  they  had  never  been 
included. 

3.  This  notion,  that  the  ancient  election  of  a  part  of  the  descendants 
of  Abraham  spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  was  of  the  pious  Jews  only,  and, 
therefore,  a  personal  election  is,  in  part,  grounded  by  these  commentators 
upon  a  mistaken  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  and 
ninth  verses  in  this  chapter ;  in  which  they  have  been  sometimes  incau- 
tiously  followed  by  those  of  very  different  sentiments,  and  who  have  thus 
somewhat  entangled  themselves.  "  Not  as  though  the  word  of  God  hath 
taken  none  effect.  For  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel : 
neither,  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children  : 
but,  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.  That  is.  They  which  are  the  chil- 
dren of  the  flesh,  these  are  not  the  children  of  God :  but  the  children  of 
the  promise  are  counted  for  the  seed.  For  this  is  the  word  of  promise, 
At  this  time  will  I  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son."  In  this  passage, 
the  interpreters  in  question  suppose  that  St.  Paul  distinguishes  between 
the  spiritual  Israelites,  and  those  of  natural  descent ;  between  the  spi- 
ritual  seed  of  Abraham,  and  his  seed  according  to  the  flesh.  Yet  the 
passage  not  only  affords  no  evidence  that  this  was  his  intention ;  but 
implies  just  the  contrary.  Our  view  of  its  meaning  is  given  above ; 
but  it  may  be  necessary  to  support  it  more  fully. 

Let  it  then  be  recollected  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  that  great 
event,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  from  being  any  longer  the  visible  Church 
of  God,  on  account  of  natural  descent ;  and  that  in  this  passage  he 
shows  that  the  purpose  of  God  to  construct  his  Church  upon  a  new 
basis,  that  of  faith  in  Christ,  although  it  would  exclude  the  body  of  the 
Jewish  people  from  this  Church,  since  they  refused  "  the  election  of 
grace"  through  faith,  would  not  prove  that  "the  word  of  God  had 
fallen"  to  the  ground  ;  or,  as  the  literal  meaning  of  the  original  is  ren- 
dered in  our  version,  "has  taken  none  effect."  The  word  of  God 
referred  to  can  only  be  God's  original  promise  to  Abraham,  to  be  "  a 
God  to  him  and  to  his  seed  after  him ;"  which  was  often  repeated  to  the 
Jews  in  after  ages,  in  the  covenant  engagement,  "  I  will  be  to  you  a 
God,  and  ye  shall  be  to  me  a  people ;"  a  mode  of  expression  which 
signifies,  in  all  the  connections  in  which  it  stands,  an  engagement  to 
acknowledge  them  as  his  visible  Church ;  he  being  publicly  acknow- 
ledged on  their  part  as  "  their  God,"  or  object  of  worship  and  trust ; 
and  they,  on  the  other,  being  acknowledged  by  him  as  his  peculiar 
"  people."  This,  therefore,  we  are  to  take  to  be  the  sense  of  the  pro- 
mise to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed.  How  then  does  the  apostle  prove 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  333 

that  the  "  word  of  God  had  not  fallen  to  the  ground,"  although  the 
natural  seed  of  Abraham,  the  Jews  of  that  day,  had  been  rejected  as  his 
Church  ?  He  proves  it  by  showing  that  all  the  children  of  Abraham  by 
natural  descent  had  not,  in  the  original  intention  of  the  promise,  been 
"counted,"  or  reckoned,  as  "the  seed"  to  which  these  promises  had 
been  made  ;  and  this  he  estabhshes  by  referring  to  those  acts  of  God  by 
which  he  had,  in  his  sovereign  pleasure,  conferred  the  Church  relation 
upon  the  descendants  of  Abraham  only  in  certain  lines,  as  in  those  of 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  excluded  the  others.  In  this  view,  the  argument 
is  cogent  to  his  purpose.  By  the  exercise  of  the  same  sovereignty  God 
had  now  resolved  not  to  connect  the  Church  relation  with  natural 
descent,  even  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob ;  but  to  establish  it  on  a 
ground  which  might  comprehend  the  Gentile  nations  also,  the  common 
ground  of  faith  in  Christ.  The  mere  children  of  the  flesh  were,  there- 
fore, in  this  instance  excluded  ;  and  "  the  children  of  the  promise,"  the 
promise  now  made  to  beheving  Jews  and  Gentiles,  those  begotten  by 
the  word  of  the  Gospel,  were  "  counted  for  the  seed."  But  though  it 
is  a  great  truth  that  only  the  children  of  the  Gospel  promise  are  now 
"  counted  for  the  seed,"  it  does  not  follow  that  the  children  of  the  pro- 
mise made  to  Sarah  were  all  spiritual  persons ;  and,  as  such,  the  only 
subjects  of  that  Church  relation  which  was  connected  with  that  circum- 
stance.  That  the  Gentiles  who  believed  upon  the  publication  of  the 
Gospel  were  always  contemplated  as  a  part  of  that  seed  to  which  the 
promises  were  made,  the  apostle  shows  in  a  former  part  of  the  same 
epistle  ;  but  that  "  mystery"  was  not  in  early  times  revealed.  God  had 
not  then  formed,  nor  did  he  till  the  apostle's  age  form,  his  visible  Church 
solely  on  the  principle  of  faith,  and  ^a  moral  relation.  This  is  the  cha- 
racter of  the  new,  not  of  the  old  dispensation  ;  and  the  different  grounds 
of  the  Church  relation  were  suited  to  the  design  of  each.  One  was  to 
preserve  truth  from  extinction ;  the  other  to  extend  it  into  all  nations : 
in  one,  therefore,  a  single  people,  taken  as  a  nation  into  political  as  well 
as  religious  relations  with  God,  was  made  the  deposite  of  the  truth  to  be 
preserved ;  in  the  other,  a  national  distinction,  and  lines  of  natural 
descent,  could  not  be  recognized,  because  the  object  was  to  call  all 
nations  to  the  obedience  of  the  same  faith,  and  to  place  all  on  an  equality 
before  God.  As  the  very  ground  of  the  Church  relation,  then,  under 
the  Old  Testament,  was  natural  descent  from  Abraham ;  and  as  it  was 
mixed  up  and  even  identified  with  a  political  relation  also,  the  ancient 
election  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  could  not  be  confined  to  spiritual 
Jews ;  and  even  if  it  could  be  proved,  that  the  Church  of  God,  under 
the  new  dispensation  is  to  be  confined  to  true  believers  only,  yet 
that  would  not  prove  that  the  ancient  Church  of  God  had  that  basis 
alone,  since  wc  know  it  had  another,  and  a  more  general  one.  When, 
therefore,  the  apostle  says,  "  for  they  are  not  all  Israel,  which  arc  of 


334  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  PART 

Israel,"  the  distinction  is  not  between  the  spiritual  and  the  natural  Israel- 
ites ;  but  between  that  part  of  the  Israelites  who  continued  to  enjoy 
Church  privileges,  and  those  who  were  "  of  Israel,"  or  descendants  of 
Jacob,  surnamed  Israel,  as  the  ten  tribes  and  parts  of  the  two,  who, 
being  dispersed  among  the  heathen  for  their  sins,  were  no  longer  a  part 
of  God's  visible  Church.  This  is  the  first  instance  which  the  apostle 
gives  of  the  rejection  of  a  part  of  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  from  the 
promise.  He  strengthens  the  argument  by  going  up  higher,  even  to 
those  who  had  immediately  been  born  to  Abraham,  the  very  children 
of  his  body,  Ishmael  and  Isaac.  "  The  children  of  the  flesh  ;"  that  is, 
Ishmael  and  his  descendants,  (so  called,  because  he  was  born  naturally, 
not  supernaturally,  as  Isaac  was,  according  to  "  the  promise"  made  to 
Abraham  and  Sarah ;) — they,  says  the  apostle,  are  not  the  "  children 
of  God  ;"  that  is,  as  the  context  still  shows,  not  "  the  seed"  to  whom  the 
promise  that  he  would  be  "  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed"  was  made  : 
"  but  the  children  of  the  promise,"  that  is,  Isaac  and  his  descendants, 
were  "  counted  for  the  seed."  And  that  we  might  not  mistake  this, 
"  the  promise"  referred  to  is  added  by  the  apostle  ; — "  for  this  is  the  word 
of  the  promise.  At  this  time  will  I  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son." 
Of  this  promise,  the  Israehtes  by  natural  descent,  were  as  much  "  the 
childreny'^  as  the  spiritual  Israelites ;  and,  therefore,  to  confine  it  to  the 
latter  is  wholly  gratuitous,  and  contrary  to  the  words  of  the  apostle.  It 
is  indeed  an  interesting  truth,  that  a  deep  and  spiritual  mystery  ran 
through  that  part  of  the  history  of  Abraham  here  referred  to,  which  the 
apostle  opens  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians :  "The  children  of  the 
bond  woman  and  her  son,"  symbolized  the  Jews  who  sought  justification 
by  the  law  ;  and  "  the  children  of  the  promise,"  "  the  children  of  the 
free  woman,"  those  who  were  justified  by  faith,  and  born  supernaturally^ 
that  is,  "  born  again,"  and  made  heirs  of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  But 
these  things,  says  St.  Paul,  are  an  "allegory;"  and  therefore  could 
not  be  the  thing  allegorized,  any  more  than  a  type  can  be  the  thing 
typified ;  for  a  type  is  always  of  an  inferior  nature  to  the  antitype,  and 
is  indeed  something  earthly,  adumbrating  that  which  is  spiritual  and 
heavenly.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  although  the  choosing  of  Isaac  and 
his  descendants  prefigured  the  choosing  of  true  beUevers,  (persons  born 
supernaturally  under  the  Gospel  dispensation,)  to  be  "  the  children  of 
God  ;"  and  that  the  rejection  of  the  "  children  of  the  flesh,"  typified  the 
rejection  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  from  God's  Church,  because  they  had 
nothing  but  natural  descent  to  plead ;  nay,  though  we  allow  that  these 
events  might  be  allegorical,  on  one  part,  of  the  truly  believing  Israelites, 
in  all  ages  ;  and  on  the  other,  of  those  who  were  Jews  only  "  outwardly," 
and,  therefore,  as  to  the  heavenly  inheritance  were  not  "  heirs ;"  yet 
still  that  which  typified,  and  represented  in  allegory  these  spiritual  mys- 
teries, was  not  the  spiritual  mystery  itself.   It  was  a  comparatively  gross. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  335- 

and  earthly  representation  of  it ;  and  the  passage  is,  therefore,  to  be  un- 
derstood of  the  election  of  the  natural  descendants  of  Isaac,  as  the  children 
of  the  promise  made  to  Sarah,  to  be  "  the  seed"  to  which  the  promises 
of  Church  privileges  and  a  Church  relation  were  intended  to  be  in  force 
though  still  subject  to  the  election  of  the  line  of  Jacob  in  preference  to 
that  of  Esau ;  and  subject  again,  at  a  still  greater  distance  of  time,  to 
the  election  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  to  continue  God's  visible  Church,  tilL 
the  coming  of  Messiah,  while  the  ten  tribes,  who  w^ere  equally  "of 
Israel,"  were  rejected. 

4.  That  this  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  be  the  visible  Church  of 
God,  involved  the  election  of  individuals  into  the  true  Church  of  God, 
and  consequently  their  election  to  eternal  life,  is  readily  acknowledged  ; 
but  this  weakens  not  in  the  least  the  arguments  by  which  we  have 
shown  that  the  apostle,  in  this  chapter,  speaks  of  collective,  and  not  of 
individual  election ;  on  the  contrary,  it  estabUshes  them.  Let  us,  to 
illustrate  this,  first  take  the  case  of  the  ancient  Jewish  Church. 

The  end  of  God's  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  pecuhar  religious 
advantages  is,  doubtless  as  to  the  individuals  of  which  these  bodies  are 
composed,  their  recovery  from  sin,  and  their  eternal  salvation.  Hence, 
to  all  such  individuals,  superior  means  of  instruction,  and  more  efficient 
means  of  salvation  are  afforded  along  with  a  deeper  responsibility.  The 
election  of  an  individual  into  the  true  Church  by  writing  his  name  in 
heaven  is,  however,  an  effect  dependent  upon  the  election  of  the  body 
to  which  he  belongs.  It  follows  only  from  his  personal  repentance,  and 
justifying  faith  ;  or  else  w^e  must  say,  that  men  are  members  of  the  true 
spiritual  Church,  before  they  repent  and  have  justifying  faith,  for  which, 
assuredly,  we  have  no  warrant  in  Scripture.  Individual  election  is  then 
another  act  of  God,  subsequent  to  the  former.  The  former  is  sovereign 
and  unconditional ;  the  latter  rests  upon  revealed  reasons ;  and  is  not, 
as  we  shall  just  now  more  fully  show,  unconditional.  These  two  kinds 
of  election,  therefore,  are  not  to  be  confounded ;  and  it  is  absurd  to 
argue  that  collective  election  has  no  existence  because  there  is  an  indi- 
vidual election ;  since  the  latter,  on  the  contrary,  necessarily  supposes 
the  former.  The  Jews,  as  a  body,  had  their  visible  Church  state,  and 
outward  privileges,  although  the  pious  Jews  alone  availed  themselves 
of  them  to  their  own  personal  salvation.  As  to  the  Christian  Church, 
there  is  a  great  difference  in  its  circumstances ;  but  the  principle,  though 
modified,  is  still  there. 

The  basis  of  this  Church  was  to  be,  not  natural  descent  from  a  com- 
mon head;  marking  out,  as  that  Church,  some  distinct  famih',  tribe, 
and,  as  it  increased  in  numbers,  some  one  nation,  invested  too,  as  a 
nation  must  be,  with  a  political  character  and  state  ;  but  faith  in  Christ. 
Yet  even  this  faith  supposes  a  previous  sovereign  and  unconditional 
collective  election.     For,  as  the  apostle  argues,  "  faith  cometh  by  hear- 

2 


336  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God :  but  how  shall  they  hear  without 
a  preacher  ?  and  how  shall  they  preach  except  they  be  sent  ?"  Now 
this  sending  to  one  Gentile  nation  before  another  Gentile  nation,  a  dis- 
tinction  which  continues  to  be  made  in  the  administration  of  the  Divine 
government  to  this  day,  is  that  sovereign  unconditional  election  of  the 
people  constituting  that  nation,  to  the  means  of  becoming  God's  Church 
by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  through  the  men  "  senV^  to  them  for 
this  purpose.  The  persons  who  first  believed  were  for  the  most  part 
real  Christians,  in  the  sense  of  being  truly,  and  in  heart  turned  to  God. 
They  could  not  generally  go  so  far  as  to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of 
Christ,  in  the  face  of  persecution,  and  in  opposition  to  their  own  former 
prejudices,  without  a  considerable  previous  ripeness  of  experience,  and 
decision  of  character.  Under  the  character  of  "  saints"  in  the  highest 
sense,  the  primitive  Churches  are  addressed  in  the  apostolical  epistles : 
and  such  we  are  bound  to  conclude  they  were ;  or  they  would  not  have 
been  so  called  by  men  who  had  the  "  discernment  of  spirits."  What- 
ever  then  the  number  was,  whether  small  or  great,  who  first  received 
the  word  of  the  Gospel  in  every  place,  they  openly  confessed  Christ, 
assembled  for  public  worship ;  and  thus  the  promise  was  fulfilled  in 
them :  "  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,"  the  object  of  worship  and  trust ; 
"  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people."  They  became  God's  visible 
Church ;  and  for  the  most  part  entered  into  that,  and  into  the  true  and 
spiritual  Church  at  the  same  time.  But  this  was  not  the  case  with  all 
the  members  ;  and  we  have  therefore  still  an  election  of  bodies  of  men 
to  a  visible  Church  state,  independent  of  their  election  as  "  heirs  of 
eternal  life."  The  children  of  believers,  even  as  children,  and  there- 
fore incapable  of  faith,  did  not  remain  in  the  same  state  of  alienation 
from  God  as  the  children  of  unbelievers ;  nay,  though  but  one  parent 
believed,  yet  the  children  are  pronounced  by  St.  Paul,  to  be  "  holy." 
*'  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbe- 
heving  wife  by  the  husband :  else  were  your  children  unclean ;  but 
now  they  are  holy."  When  both  parents  believed,  and  trained  up  their 
families  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  to  worship  the  true  God,  the  case  was 
stronger :  the  family  was  then  "  a  Church  in  the  house ;"  though  all 
the  members  of  it  might  not  have  saving  faith.  Sincere  faith  or  assent 
to  the  Gospel,  with  desires  of  instruction  and  salvation,  appear  to  have 
uniformly  entitled  the  person  to  baptism  ;  and  the  use  of  Christian  ordi- 
nances followed.  The  numbers  of  the  visible  Church  swelled  till  it 
comprehended  cities,  and  at  last  countries  ;  whose  inhabitants  were  thus 
elected  to  special  rehgious  privileges,  and,  forsaking  idols  and  worship- 
ping God,  constituted  liis  visible  Church  among  Gentile  nations.  And 
that  the  Apostle  Paul  regarded  all  who  "  called  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord"  as  Christian  Churches,  is  evident  from  his  asserting  his  authority 
of  reproof,  and  counsel,  and  even  excision  over  them,  as  to  their  un- 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  337 

worthy  members ;  and  also  from  his  threatening  the  Gentile  Churches 
with  the  fate  of  the  Jewish  Church ; — unless  they  stood  by  faith,  they 
also  should  be  "  cut  off;"  that  is,  be  unchurched.  Of  his  full  meanings 
subsequent  history  gives  the  elucidation,  in  the  case  of  those  very 
Churches  in  Asia  Minor  which  he  himself  planted ;  and  which,  depart- 
ing  from  the  faith  of  Christ,  his  true  doctrine,  havfe  been,  in  many 
instances,  "  cut  off,"  and  swallowed  up  in  the  Mohammedan  delusion  ; 
so  that  Christ  is  there  no  longer  worshipped.  The  whole  proves  a 
sovereign  unconditional  election  independent  of  personal  election ; 
unconditional  as  to  the  people  to  whom  the  Gospel  was  first  sent ;  un- 
conditional as  to  the  children  born  of  believing  parents  ;  unconditional 
as  to  the  inhabitants  of  those  countries  who,  when  a  Christian  Church 
was  first  estabhshed  among  them,  came,  without  seeking  it,  into  th^ 
possession  of  invaluable  and  efficacious  means  and  ordinances  of  Chris- 
tian instruction  and  salvation  ;  and  who  all  finally,  by  education,  became 
professors  of  the  true  faith  ;  and,  as  far  as  assent  goes,  sincere  believers. 
This  election  too,  as  in  the  Jewish  Church,  was  made  with  reference 
to  a  personal  election  into  the  true  spiritual  Church  of  God ;  but  per- 
sonal election  was  conditional.  It  rested,  as  we  have  Seen,  upoil 
personal  repentance  and  justifying  faith  ;  or  else  we  must  hold  that  men 
could  be  members  of  the  true  Church  without  either.  This  election 
was  then  dependent  upon  the  other ;  and,  instead  of  disproving,  abun^ 
dantly  confirms  it.  The  tenor  of  the  apostle's  argument  sufficiently 
shows  that  the  transfer  of  the  Church  state  and  relation  from  one  body 
of  men  to  others,  is  that  which  in  this  discourse  he  has  in  view — ia 
other  words,  he  speaks  of  the  election  of  bodies  of  men  to  religious 
advantages,  liot  of  individuals  to  eternal  life  ;  and  however  intimately 
the  one  may  be  connected  with  the  other,  the  latter  is  not  necessarily 
involved  in  the  former ;  since  superior  religious  privileges,  in  all  ages^ 
have^  to  many,  proved  but  an  aggravation  of  their  condemnation. 

The  THIRD  kind  of  election  is  personal  election ;  or  the  election  of 
individuals  to  be  the  children  of  God,  and  the  heirs  of  eternal  life. 

It  is  not  at  all  disputed  between  us  and  those  who  hold  the  Calvinistic 
view  of  election,  whether  behevers  in  Christ  are  called  the  elect  of 
God  with  reference  to  their  individual  state  and  individual  relation  to 
God  as  his  "  people,"  in  the  highest  sense  of  that  phrase.  Such  pas- 
sages as  "  the  elect  of  God  ;"  "  chosen  of  God  ;"  "  chosen  in  Christ ;' 
"  elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father ;"  and  many 
others,  we  allow  therefore,  although  borrowed  froni  that  collective  elec^ 
tion  of  which  we  have  spoken,  to  be  descriptive  of  an  act  of  grace  in 
favour  of  certain  persons  considered  individually. 

The  first  question  then  which  naturally  arises,  respects  the  import  of 
that  act  of  grace  which  is  termed  choosing,  or  an  election.  It  is  not 
a  choosing  to  particular  offices  and  service,  which  is  the  first  kind  of 

Vol.  II.  22 


338  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

election  we  have  mentioned  ;  nor  is  it  that  collective  election  to  religious 
privileges  and  a  visible  Church  state,  on  which  we  have  more  largely 
dwelt.  For  although  "  the  elect"  have  an  individual  interest  in  such  an 
election  as  parts  of  the  collective  body,  thus  placed  in  possession  of  the 
ordinances  of  Christianity  ;  yet  many  others  have  the  same  advantages, 
who  still  remain  under  the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  sin  and  practical 
unbelief.  The  individuals  properly  called  "  the  elect,"  are  they  who 
have  been  made  partakers  of  the  grace  and  saving  efficacy  of  the  Gos- 
pel.    "  Many,"  says  our  Lord,  "  are  called,  but  few  chosen." 

What  true  personal  election  is,  we  shall  find  explained  in  two  clear 
passages  of  Scripture.  It  is  explained  negatively  by  our  Lord,  where 
he  says  to  his  disciples,  "  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world :"  it  is 
explained  positively  by  St.  Peter,  when  he  addresses  his  first  epistle  to 
the  "  elect,  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through 
sanclification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus."  To  be  elected,  therefore,  is  to  be  separated  from  "  the  world," 
and  to  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  and  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

It  follows,  then,  that  election  is  not  only  an  act  of  God  done  in  time ; 
but  also  that  it  is  subsequent  to  the  administration  of  the  means  of  sal- 
vation. The  "  calling"  goes  before  the  "  election ;"  the  publication  of 
the  doctrine  of  "  the  Spirit,"  and  the  atonement,  called  by  Peter  "  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  before  that  "  sanctification"  through 
which  they  become  "  the  elect"  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  eternal  elec- 
tion is  thus  brought  down  to  its  true  meaning.  Actual  election  cannot 
be  eternal ;  for,  from  eternity,  the  elect  were  not  actually  chosen  out 
of  the  world,  and  from  eternity,  they  could  not  be  "  sanctified  unto  obe- 
dience."  The  phrases,  "  eternal  election,"  and  "  eternal  decree  of  elec- 
tion," so  often  in  the  Hps  of  Calvinists,  can,  in  common  sense,  therefore, 
mean  only  an  eternal  purpose  to  elect ;  or  a  purpose  formed  in  eternity^ 
to  elect,  or  choose  out  of  the  world,  and  sanctify  iii  time,  by  "  the  Spirit 
and  the  blood  of  Jesus."  This  is  a  doctrine  which  no  one  will  contend 
with  them ;  but  when  they  graft  upon  it  another,  that  God  hath,  from 
eternity,  "  chosen  in  Christ  unto  salvation,"  a  set  number  of  men,  "  cer- 
tam  quorundam  hominum  multitudinem ;"  not  upon  foresight  of  faith  and 
the  obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  or  of  any  other  good  quality,  or  dispo- 
sition, (as  a  cause  or  condition  before  required  in  man  to  be  chosen ;) 
but  unto  faith,  and  the  obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  &;c,  "  non  ex  proevisa 
fide,  fideique  ohedientia,  sanctitate,  aut  alia  aliqua  bona  qua  litate  et  dis- 
positions,''^  <SfC,  (Judgment  of  the  Synod  ofDort,)  it  presents  itself  under 
a  different  aspect,  and  requires  an  appeal  to  the  word  of  God. 

This  view  of  election  has  two  parts  :  it  is  the  choosing  of  a  set  or  de- 
terminate number  of  men,  who  cannot  be  increased  or  diminished ;  and 
it  is  unconditional.     Let  us  consider  each. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  there  is  no  text  of  Scripture  which  teaches 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES. 

that  a  fixed  and  determinate  number  of  men  are  elected  to  eternal  life ; 
and  the  passages  which  the  synod  of  Dort,  adduce  in  proof,  being  such 
as  they  only  infer  the  doctrine  from,  the  synod  themselves  allow  that 
they  have  no  express  Scriptural  evidence  for  this  tenet.  But  if  there  is 
no  explicit  scripture  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  there  is  much  against  it ; 
and  to  this  test  it  must,  therefore,  be  brought. 

The  election  here  spoken  of  must  either  be  election  in  eternity,  or 
election  in  time.  If  the  former,  it  can  only  mean  a  purpose  of  electing 
in  time ;  if  the  latter,  it  is  actual  election,  or  choosing  out  of  the  world. 

Now  as  to  God's  eternal  purpose  to  elect,  it  is  clear,  that  is  a  subject 
on  which  we  can  know  nothing  but  from  his  own  revelation.  We  take, 
then,  the  matter  on  this  ground.  A  purpose  to  elect,  is  a  purpose  to 
save ;  and  when  it  is  explicitly  declared  in  this  revelation  that  God 
"  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved,"  and  that  "  he  willeth  not  the  death  of  a 
sinner,"  either  we  must  say,  that  his  will  is  contrary  to  his  purpose, 
which  would  be  to  charge  God  foolishly,  and  indeed  has  no  meaning  at 
all ;  or  it  agrees  with  liis  purpose  :  if  then  his  will  agrees  with  his  pur- 
pose, that  purpose  was  not  confined  to  a  "  certain  determinate  number 
of  men  ;"  but  extended  to  all  "  whosoever''^  should  believe,  that  they  might 
be  elected  and  saved. 

Again,  we  have  established  it  as  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  died  for  all  men,  that  all  men  through  him  might  be 
saved ;  but  if  he  died  in  order  to  their  salvation  through  faith,  he  died 
in  order  to  their  election  through  faith ;  and  God  must  have  purposed 
this  from  eternity. 

Farther,  we  have  his  own  message  to  all  to  whom  his  servants  preach 
the  Gospel.  They  are  commanded  to  preach  "  to  every  creature," — 
"  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved ;  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  This  is  an  unquestionable  decree  of  God  in  time  ;  and,  if 
God  be  unchangeable,  it  was  his  decree,  as  touching  this  matter,  from 
all  eternity.  But  this  decree  or  purpose  can  in  no  way  be  reconciled  to 
the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  purpose  to  elect  only  "  a  set  and  determinate 
number."  For  the  Gospel  could  not  be  good  news  to  "  every  creature" 
to  whom  it  should  be  as  such  proclaimed,  which  is  the  first  contradict 
tion  to  the  text.  Nor  would  those  who  believe  it  not,  but  who  are  ne- 
vertheless commanded  to  believe  it,  have  any  power  to  believe  it,  which 
is  the  second  contradiction  :  for  since  they  are  to  be  "  damned"  for  not 
believing:,  they  must  have  had  the  power  to  believe,  or  they  could  not 
have  come  into  condemnation  for  an  act  impossible  to  them  to  perform, 
or  else  we  must  admit  it  as  a  principle  of  the  Divine  government  that 
God  commands  his  creatures  to  do,  what  under  no  circumstances  they 
can  do  ;  and  then  punishes  them  for  not  doing  what  he  thus  commands. 
Finally,  he  commands  those  that  believe  not,  and  who  are  alleged  not  to 
be  included  in  this  "  fixed  number"  of  elected  persons,  to  believe  the 

2 


ar40  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

good  tidings,  as  a  matter  in  which  they  are  interested :  they  are  com- 
manded to  believe  the  Gospel  as  a  truth  ;  but  if  they  are  not  interested 
in  it,  they  are  commanded  to  believe  a  falsehood,  which  is  the  third  con- 
tradiction ;  and  thus  the  text  and  the  doctrine  cannot  consist  together. 

As  the  whole  argument  on  this  point  is  involved  in  what  we  have 
already  established  concerning  the  universal  extent  of  the  benefits,  of 
Christ's  death,  we  may  leave  it  to  be  determined  by  what  has  been  ad- 
vanced on  that  topic  ;  observing  only,  that  two  of  the  points  there  con- 
firmed bear  directly  upon  the  doctrine,  that  election  is  confined  to  a 
"  fixed  number  of  men."  If  we  have  proved  from  Scripture,  that  the 
reason  of  the  condemnation  of  men  lies  in  themselves,  and  not  in  the 
want  of  a  sufficient  and  effectual  provision  having  been  made  in  Christ 
for  their  salvation,  then  the  number  of  the  actually  elect  might  be  in- 
creased ;  and  if  it  has  been  established  that  those  for  whom  Christ  died 
might  "  perish  ;"  and  that  true  believers  may  "  turn  back  unto  perdition," 
and  be  "  cast  away,"  and  fall  into  a  state  in  which  it  were  better  for 
them  "  never  to  have  known  the  way  of  righteousness,"  then  the  number 
of  the  elect  may  be  diminished.  To  what  has  already  been  said  on 
these  subjects  the  reader  is  referred  ;  and  we  shall  now  only  mention  a  few 
of  the  difficulties  with  which  the  doctrine  of  an  election  from  eternity  of 
a  determinate  number  of  men  to  be  made  heirs  of  eternal  life  is  attended. 

Whether  men  Avill  look  to  the  dark  and  repugnant  side  of  this  doc- 
trine of  the  eternal  election  of  a  certain  number  of  men  unto  salvation, 
or  not,  it  unavoidably  follows  from  it,  that  all  but  the  persons  so  chosen 
in  Christ,  are  placed  utterly  and  absolutely,  from  their  very  birth,  out 
of  the  reach  of  salvation ;  and  have  no  share  at  all  in  the  saving  mercies 
of  God,  who  from  eternity  purposed  to  reject  them,  and  that  not  for  their 
fault  as  sinners.  For  all,  except  Adam  and  Eve,  have  come  into  the  world 
with  a  nature  which,  left  to  itself,  could  not  but  sin  ;  and  as  the  deter- 
mination of  God,  never  to  give  the  reprobate  the  means  of  avoiding  sin, 
could  not  rest  upon  their  y<2wZ^,  for  what  is  absolutely  inevitable  cannot  be 
charged  on  man  as  his  fault,  so  it  must  rest  where  all  the  high  Calvin- 
istic  divines  place  it, — upon  the  mere  will  eind  sovereign  pleasure  of 
God. 

The  difficulties  of  reconciling  such  a  scheme  as  this  to  the  nature  of 
God,  not  as  it  is  fancied  by  man,  but  as  it  is  revealed  in  his  own  word ; 
and  to  many  other  declarations  of  Scripture  as  to  the  principles  of  the 
administration  both  of  his  law  and  of  his  grace ;  one  would  suppose 
insuperable  by  any  mind,  and  indeed,  are  so  revolting,  that  few  of  those 
who  cling  to  the  doctrine  of  election  will  be  found  bold  enough  to  keep 
them  steadily  in  sight.  They  even  think  it  uncandid  for  us  who  oppose 
these  views  to  pursue  them  to  their  legitimate  logical  consequences. 
But  in  discussion  this  is  inevitable ;  and  if  it  be  done  in  fairness,  and  in 
the  spirit  of  candour,  without  pushing  hard  arguments  into  hard  words, 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  341 

the  cause  of  truth,  and  a  right  understanding  of  the  word  of  God,  will 
thereby  be  promoted. 

The  doctrine  of  the  election  to  eternal  life  only  of  a  certain  determi- 
nate number  of  men  to  salvation,  involving,  as  it  necessarily  does,  the 
doctrine  of  the  absolute  and  unconditional  reprobation  of  all  the  rest  of 
mankind,  cannot,  we  may  confidently  affirm,  be  reconciled, 

1.  To  the  LOVE  of  God.  *'  God  is  love."  «He  is  loving  to  every 
man  :  and  his  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works." 

2.  Nor  to  the  wisdom  of  God ;  for  the  bringing  into  being  a  vast 
number  of  intelligent  creatures  under  a  necessity  of  sinning,  and  of 
being  eternally  lost,  teaches  no  moral  lesson  to  the  world ;  and  contra- 
dicts all  those  notions  of  wisdom  in  the  ends  and  processes  of  govern- 
ment which  we  are  taught  to  look  for,  not  only  from  natural  reason,  but 
from  the  Scriptures. 

3.  Nor  to  the  grace  of  God,  which  is  so  often  magnified  in  the  Scrip- 
tures :  "  for  doth  it  argue  any  sovereign  or  high  strain ;  any  super- 
abounding  richness  of  grace  or  mercy  in  any  man,  when  ten  thousand 
have  equally  offended  him,  only  to  pardon  one  or  two  of  them  ?"  (Good- 
will's  Agreement  and  Difference.)  And  on  such  a  scheme  can  there  be 
any  interpretation  given  of  the  passage  "  that  where  sin  had  abounded, 
grace  might  much  more  abound  ?"  or  in  what  sense  has  "  the  grace  of 
God  appeared  unto  all  men ;"  or  even  to  one  miUionth  part  of  them  ? 

4.  Nor  can  this  merciless  reprobation  be  reconciled  to  any  of  those 
numerous  passages  in  which  almighty  God  is  represented  as  tenderly 
compassionate,  and  pitiful  to  the  worst  and  most  unworthy  of  his  crea- 
tures, even  them  who  finally  perish.  "  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  him  that  dieth :"  «  Being  grieved  at  the  hardness  of  their  hearts." 
"  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  as  a  hen  ga- 
thereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not."  "  The  Lord 
is  long  suffering  to  us-ward,  not  willing  that  any  should  perish."  "  Or 
despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness,  and  forbearance,  and  long  suffer- 
ing ;  not  knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to  repentance." 

5.  It  is  as  manifestly  contrary  to  his  justice.  Here,  indeed,  we 
would  not  assume  to  measure  this  attribute  of  God  by  unauthorized  hu- 
man conceptions ;  but  when  God  himself  has  appealed  to  those  esta- 
blished notions  of  justice  and  equity  which  have  been  received  among 
all  enlightened  persons,  in  all  ages,  as  the  measure  and  rule  of  his  own, 
we  cannot  be  charged  with  this  presumption.  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of 
all  the  earth  do  right  ?"  « Are  not  my  ways  equal  7  saith  the  Lord." 
We  may  then  be  bold  to  affirm,  that  justice  and  equity  in  God  are  what 
they  are  taken  to  be  among  reasonable  men ;  and  if  all  men  every 
where  would  condemn  it,  as  most  contrary  to  justice  and  right,  that  a 
sovereign  should  condemn  to  death  one  or  more  of  his  subjects,  for  not 
obeying  laws    which  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for   them,  under  any 


342  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

circumstances  which  they  can  possibly  avail  themselves  of,  to  obey,  and 
much  more  the  greater  part  of  his  subjects ;  and  to  require  them,  on 
pain  of  aggravated  punishment,  to  do  something  in  order  to  the  pardon 
and  remission  of  their  offences,  which  he  knows  they  cannot  do,  say  to 
stop  the  tide  or  to  remove  a  mountain ;  it  implies  a  charge  as  awfully 
and  obviously  unjust  against  God,  who  is  so  "  holy  and  just  in  all  his 
doings,*'  so  exactly  "  just  in  the  judgments  which  he  executeth,"  as  to 
silence  all  his  creatures,  to  suppose  him  to  act  precisely  in  the  same 
manner  as  to  those  whom  he  has  passed  by  and  rejected,  without  any 
ayoidable  fault  of  their  own ;  to  destroy  them  by  the  simple  rule  of  his 
own  sovereignty,  or,  in  other  words,  to  show  that  he  has  power  to  do  it. 
In  whatever  light  the  subject  be  viewed,  no  fault,  in  any  right  construc- 
tion, can  be  chargeable  upon  the  persons  so  punished,  or,  ^s  we  may 
rather  say,  destroyed,  since  punishment  supposes  a  judicial  proceeding, 
which  this  act  shuts  out.  For  either  the  reprobates  are  destroyed  for  a 
pure  reason  of  sovereignty,  without  any  reference  to  their  sinfulness,  and 
thus  all  criminality  is  left  out  of  the  consideration  ;  or  they  are  destroyed 
for  the  sin  of  Adam,  to  which  they  were  not  consenting  ;  or  for  personal 
faults  resulting  from  a  corruption  of  nature  which  they  brought  into  the 
world  with  them,  and  which  God  wills  not  to  correct,  and  they  have  no 
power  to  correct  thernselves.  Every  received  notion  of  justice  is  thus 
violated.  We  grant,  indeed,  that  some  proceedings  of  the  Almighty  may 
appear  at  first  irreconcilable  with  justice,  which  are  not  so ;  as  that  we 
should  suffer  pain  and  death,  and  be  infected  with  a  morally  corrupt 
nature  in  consequence  of  the  transgression  of  our  first  progenitors ;  that 
children  should  suffer  for  their  parents'  faults  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
providence  ;  and  that,  in  general  calamities,  the  comparatively  innocent 
should  suffer  the  same  evils  as  the  guilty.  But  none  of  these  are  pa- 
rallel cases.  For  the  "  free  gift"  has  come  upon  all  men,  "  in  order  to 
justification  of  hfe,"  through  "  the  righteousness"  of  the  second  Adam, 
so  that  the  terms  of  our  probation  are  but  changed.  None  are  doomed 
to  inevitable  ruin,  or  the  above  words  of  the  apostle  would  have  no 
meaning ;  and  pain  and  death,  as  to  all  who  avail  themselves  of  the 
remedy,  are  made  the  instruments  of  a  higher  life,  and  of  a  superabound- 
ing  of  grace  through  Christ.  The  same  observation  may  be  made  as 
to  children  who  suffer  evils  for  their  parents'  faults.  This  circumstance 
alters  the  terms  of  their  probation ;  but  if  every  condition  of  probation 
leaves  to  men  the  possibility  and  the  hope  of  eternal  life,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances of  all  are  balanced  and  weighed  by  him  who  administers 
the  affairs  of  individuals  on  principles,  the  end  of  which  is  to  turn  all 
the  evils  of  life  into  spiritual  and  higher  blessings,  there  is,  obviously, 
no  impeachment  of  justice  in  the  circumstances  of  the  probation  as- 
signed to  any  person  whatever.  As  to  the  innocent  suffering  equally 
with  the  guilty  in  general  calamities,  the  persons  so  suffering  are  but 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  343 

COMPARATIVELY  innoccnt,  and  their  perscMial  transgressions  against  God 
deserve  a  higher  punishment  than  any  which  this  Ufe  witnesses ;  this 
may  also  as  to  them  be  overruled  for  merciful  purposes,  and  a  future 
life  presents  its  manifold  compensations.  But  as  to  the  non-elect,  the 
whole  case,  in  this  scheme  of  sovereign  reprobation,  or  sovereign  pre- 
tention, is  supposed  to  be  before  us.  Their  state  is  fixed,  their  afflictions 
in  this  hfe  will  not  in  any  instance  be  overruled  for  ends  of  edification 
and  salvation ;  they  arc  left  under  a  necessity  of  sinning  in  every  con- 
dition ;  and  a  future  life  presents  no  compensation,  but  a  fearful  looking 
for  of  fiery  and  quenchless  indignation.  It  is  surely  not  possible  for  the 
ingenuity  of  man  to  reconcile  this  to  any  notion  of  just  government 
which  has  ever  obtained  ;  and  by  the  established  notions  of  justice  and 
equity  in  human  affairs,  we  are  taught  by  the  Scriptures  themselves  to 
judge  of  the  Divine  proceedings  in  all  completely  stated  and  compre- 
hensible cases. 

6.  Equally  impossible  is  it  to  reconcile  this  notion  to  the  sincerity 
of  God  in  offering  salvation  by  Christ  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  of 
whom  this  scheme  supposes  the  majority,  or  at  least  great  numbers,  to 
be  among  the  reprobate.  The  Gospel,  as  we  have  seen,  is  commanded 
to  be  preached  to  "  every  creature  ;"  which  pubUcation  of  "  good  news 
to  every  creature,"  is  an  offer  of  salvation  "  to  every  creature,"  accom- 
panied with  earnest  invitations  to  embrace  it,  and  admonitory  commina- 
tions  lest  any  should  neglect  and  despise  it.  But  does  it  not  involve  a 
serious  reflection  upon  the  truth  and  sincerity  of  God  which  men  ought 
to  shudder  at,  to  assume,  at  the  very  time  the  Gospel  is  thus  preached, 
that  no  part  of  this  good  news  was  ever  designed  to  benefit  the  majority, 
or  any  great  part  of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  ?  that  they  to  whom 
this  love  of  God  in  Christ  is  proclaimed  were  never  loved  by  God  ?  that 
he  has  decreed  that  many  to  whom  he  offers  salvation,  and  whom  he 
invites  to  receive  it,  shall  never  be  saved  ?  and  that  he  will  consider  their 
sins  aggravated  by  rejecting  that  which  they  never  could  receive,  and 
which  he  never  designed  them  to  receive  ?  It  is  no  answer  to  this  to  say, 
that  we  also  admit  that  the  offers  of  mercy  are  made  by  God  to  many 
whom  he,  by  virtue  of  his  prescience,  knows  will  never  receive  them. 
We  grant  this ;  but,  not  now  to  enter  upon  the  question  of  foreknow- 
ledge, it  is  enough  to  reply,  that  here  there  is  no  insincerity.  On  the 
Calvinian  scheme  the  offer  of  salvation  is  made  to  those  for  whose  sins 
Christ  made  no  atonement ;  on  ours,  he  made  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
all.  On  the  former,  the  offer  is  made  to  those  whom  God  never  de- 
signed to  embrace  it ;  on  ours,  to  none  but  those  whom  God  seriously  and 
in  truth  wills  that  they  should  avail  themselves  of  it ;  on  their  theory, 
the  bar  to  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect  lies  in  the  want  of  a  provided 
sacrifice  for  sin ;  on  ours,  it  rests  solely  in  men  themselves :  one  con- 
sists, therefore,  with  a  perfect  sincerity  of  oflTer,  the  other  cannot  be 

2 


344  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

maintained  without  bringing  the  sincerity  of  God  into  question,  and 
fixing  a  stigma  upon  his  moral  truth. 

7.  Unconditional  reprobation  cannot  be  reconciled  with  that  frequent 
declaration  of  Scripture,  that  Gop  is  no  respecter  of  perso^^s.  This 
phrase,  we  grant,  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  though  the  bounties  of  the 
Almighty  were  dispensed  in  equal  measures  to  his  creatures.  In  the 
administration  of  favour,  there  is  place  for  the  exercise  of  that  preroga- 
tive which,  in  a  just  sense,  is  called  the  sovereignty  of  God  ;  but  justice 
knows  but  of  one  rule ;  it  is,  in  its  nature,  settled  and  fixed,  and  respects 
not  the  PERSON,  but  the  case.  ?'  To  have  respect  of  persons"  is  a 
phrase,  therefore,  in  Scripture,  which  sometimes  refers  to  judicial  pro- 
ceedings, and  signifies  to  judge  from  partiality  and  affection,  and  not 
upon  the  merits  of  the  question.  It  is  also  used  by  St.  Peter  with  refer- 
ence to  the  acceptance  of  Cornelius : — "  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God 
js  no  respecter  of  persons ;  but  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him,  an4 
worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him."  Here  it  is  clear,  that  to 
respect  persons,  would  be  to  reject  or  accept  them  without  regard  to 
their  moral  qualities,  and  on  some  national  or  other  prejudice  or  par- 
tiality  which  forms  no  moral  rule  of  any  kind.  But  if  the  doctrine  of 
absolute  election  and  reprobation  be  true  ;  if  we  are  to  understand  that 
men  hke  Jacob  and  Esau,  in  the  Calvinistic  construction  of  the  passages 
while  in  the  womb  of  their  mother,  nay,  fron^  eternity,  are  loved  and 
Jiated,  elected  or  reprobated,  before  they  have  done  '^  good  or  evil,"  then 
it  necessarily  follows,  that  there  is  precisely  this  kind  of  respect  of  per? 
sons  with  God  ;  for  his  acceptance  or  rejection  of  men  stands  on  some 
ground  of  aversion  or  dislike,  which  cannot  be  resolved  into  any  moral 
rule,  and  has  no  respect  to  the  merits  of  the  case  itself;  and  if  the  Scrip- 
ture affirms  that  there  is  no  such  respect  of  persons  with  God,  then  the 
(doctrine  which  implies  it  is  contradicted  by  inspired  authority. 

8.  The  doctrine  of  which  we  are  showing  the  difficulties,  brings  with 
it  the  repulsive  and  shocking  opinion  of  the  eternal  punishment  of 
INFANTS.  Sonie  Calviniste  have,  indeed,  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty,  or 
rather  to  put  it  out  of  sight,  consigned  them  to  annihilation  ;  but  of  the 
annihilation  of  any  human  being  there  is  no  intimation  in  the  word  of 
God.  In  order,  therefore,  to  avoid  the  fearful  consequence  of  admitting 
the  punishment  of  beings  innocent  as  to  all  actual  sin,  there  is  no  other 
way  than  to  suppose  all  children  dying  in  infancy  to  be  an  elected  por- 
tion of  mankind,  which,  however,  would  be  a  mere  hypothesis  brought 
in  to  serve  a  theory  without  any  evidence.  That  some  of  those  who, 
as  they  suppose,  are  under  this  sentence  of  reprobation,  die  in  their 
infancy,  is,  probably,  what  most  Calvinists  allow  ;  and  if  their  doctrine 
l^e  received  cannot  be  denied ;  and  it  follows,  therefore,  that  all  such 
infants  are  eternally  lost.  Now  we  know  that  infants  are  not  lost,  be- 
cause our  Lord  gave  it  as  a  reason  w^hy  little  children  ought  not  to  be 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  345 

hindered  from  coming  unto  liim,  that  "of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  On  which  Calvin  himself  remarks,  {Harm,  in  Matt,  xix,  13,) 
*'  in  this  word,  '  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  Christ  compre- 
hends as  well  liUle  children  themselves,  as  those  who  in  disposition 
resemble  them.  Hac  voce,  tarn  parvulos,  quam  eorum  similes,  compre- 
hendit."  We  are  assured  of  tlie  salvation  of  infants,  also,  because  "  the 
free  gift  has  come  upon  all  men  to  [in  order  to]  justification  of  hfe," 
and  because  children  are  not  capable  of  rejecting  that  blessing,  and 
must,  therefore,  derive  benefit  from  it.  The  point,  also,  on  which  we 
have  just  now  touched,  that  "  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God," 
demonstrates  it.  For,  as  it  will  be  acknowledged  that  some  children, 
dying  in  infancy,  are  saved,  it  must  follow,  from  this  principle  and 
axiom  in  the  Divine  government,  that  all  infants  are  saved  :  for  the 
case  of  all  infants,  as  to  innqcence  or  guilt,  sin  or  righteousness,  being 
the  same,  and  God,  as  a  judge,  being  "  no  respecter  of  persons,"  but 
regarding  only  the  merits  of  the  case ;  he  cannot  make  this  awful  dis- 
tinction as  to  them,  that  one  part  shall  be  eternally  saved  and  the  other 
eternally  lost.  That  doctrine,  therefore,  which  implies  the  perdition  of 
infants  cannot  be  congruous  to  the  Scriptures  of  truth  ;  but  is  utterly 
abhorrent  to  them.  (On  the  case  of  infants,  see  part  ii,  p.  57.) 

9.  Finally,  not  to  multiply  these  instances  of  the  difficulties  which 
accompany  the  doctrine  of  absolute  reprobation,  or  of  pretention,  (to  use 
the  milder  term,  though  the  argument  is  not  in  the  least  changed  by  it,) 
it  destroys  the  end  of  punitive  justice.  Tliat  end  can  onty  be  to  deter 
men  from  offence,  and  to  add  strength  to  the  law  of  God.  But  if  the 
whole  body  of  the  reprobate  are  left  to  the  influence  of  their  fallen  nature 
without  remedy,  they  cannot  be  deterred  from  sin  by  threats  of  inevita- 
ble punishment ;  nor  can  they  ever  submit  to  the  dominion  of  the  law 
of  God  :  their  doom  is  fixed,  and  threats  and  examples  can  avail 
nothing. 

We  may  leave  every  candid  mind  to  the  discussion  of  these  and  many 
other  difficulties,  suggested  by  the  doctrine  of  the  synod  of  Dort,  as  to 
the  election  of  "  a  set  and  determinate  number  of  men"  to  eternal  life ; 
and  proceed  to  consider  the  second  branch  of  this  opinion — that  elec. 
Hon  is  unconditional,  "  It  was  made,"  says  the  synod,  "  not  upon 
foresight  of  faith,  and  the  obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  or  any  other  good 
quality  or  disposition,  (as  a  cause  or  condition  before  required  in  men 
to  be  chosen,)  but  u7ito  faith,  and  the  obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  d:c." 

Election,  we  have  already  said,  must  be  either  God's  purpose  in  eter- 
nity to  elect  actually,  or  it  must  be  actual  election  itself  in  time  ;  for  as 
election  is  choosing  men  "  out  of  the  world,"  into  the  true  Church  of 
Christ,  actual  election  from  eternity  is  not  possible,  because  the  subjects 
of  election  had  no  existence ;  there  was  no  world  to  choose  them  "  out 
pf,"  and  no  Church  into  which  to  bring  them.     To  affirm  that  any  part 

2 


•iSi 


346  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  mankind  were  chosen  from  eternity,  in  purpose,  (for  in  no  other  way 
could  they  be  chosen,)  to  become  members  of  the  Church  without 
"  foresight  of  faith,  and  the  obedience  of  faith,"  is  therefore  to  say,  that 
God  purposed  from  all  eternity  to  establish  a  distinction  between  the 
■WORLD,  "  out"  of  which  the  elect  are  actually  chosen,  and  the  Church, 
which  has  no  foundation  in,  or  respect  to,  faith  and  obedience  ;  in  other 
words,  to  constitute  his  Church  of  persons  to  whose  faith  and  obedience 
he  had  no  respect.  For  how  is  this  conclusion  to  be  avoided  ?  The 
subjects  of  this  election,  it  seems,  are  chosen  as  men,  as  Peter,  James, 
and  John,  not  as  believers.  God  eternally  purposed  to  make  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  members  of  his  Church,  without  respect  to  their  faith 
or  obedience ;  his  Church  is  therefore  constituted  on  the  sole  principle 
of  this  purpose,  not  upon  the  basis  of  faith  and  obedience  ;  and  the  per- 
sons chosen  into  it  in  time  are  chosen  because  they  are  of  the  number 
included  in  this  eternal  purpose,  and  with  no  regard  to  their  being 
behevers  and  obedient,  or  the  contrary.  How  manifestly  this  opposes 
the  word  of  God,  we  need  scarcely  stay  to  point  out.  It  contradicts 
that  specific  distinction  constantly  made  in  Scripture  between  the  true 
Church  and  the  world,  the  only  marks  of  distinction  being,  as  to  the 
former,  faith  and  obedience ;  and  as  to  the  latter,  unbelief  and  disobe- 
dience— in  other  words,  the  Church  is  composed  not  merely  of  men,  as 
Peter,  James,  and  John  ;  but  of  Peter,  James,  and  John  beheving  and 
obeying :  while  all  who  believe  not,  and  obey  not,  are  "  the  world." 
The  Scriptures  make  the  essential  elements  of  the  Church  to  be  believ- 
ing and  obeying  men  ;  the  synod  of  Dort  makes  them  to  be  men  in  the 
simple  condition  of  being  included  in  a  set  and  determinate  number, 
chosen  with  no  respect  to  faith  and  obedience.  Thus  we  have  laid  two 
very  different  foundations  upon  which  to  place  the  superstructure  of  the 
Church  of  Christ ;  one  of  them  indeed  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures, 
but  the  other  only  in  the  theories  of  men ;  and  as  they  agree  not  toge- 
ther, one  of  them  must  be  renounced. 

But  election,  without  respect  to  faith,  is  contrary  also  to  the  history 
of  the  commencement  and  first  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
Peter,  James,  and  John  did  not  become  disciples  of  Christ  in  unbehef 
and  disobedience.  The  very  act  of  their  becoming  disciples  of  Christ, 
unequivocally  implied  some  degree  both  of  faith  and  obedience.  They 
were  chosen,  not  as  men,  but  as  beheving  men.  This  is  indicated  also 
by  the  grand  rite  of  baptism,  instituted  by  Christ  when  he  commissioned 
his  disciples  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  call  men  into  his  Church.  That 
baptism  was  the  gate  into  this  Church  cannot  be  denied ;  but  faith  was 
required  in  order  to  baptism  ;  and,  where  true  faith  existed,  this  open 
confession  of  Christ  would  necessarily  follow,  without  delay.  Here, 
then,  we  see  on  what  grounds  men  were  actually  elected  into  the  Church 
of  Christ ;  it  was  with  respect  to  their  faith  that  they  were  thus  chosen 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  347 

out  of  the  world,  and  thus  chosen  into  the  Church.  Tlie  rule,  too,  is 
universal ;  and  if  so,  if  it  universally  holds  good  that  actual  election  has 
respect  to  faith,  then,  unless  God's  eternal  purpose  to  elect  be  at  vari- 
ance with  his  electing,  that  is,  unless  he  purposes  one  thing  and  does 
another  differing  from  his  purpose  ;  purposes  to  elect  without  respect 
to  faith  ;  and  only  actually  elects  with  respect  to  faith  ;  his  eternal  pur- 
pose to  elect  had  respect  both  to  faith  and  obedience. 

It  is  true,  that  the  synod  of  Dort  says,  that  election  is  "  unto  faith  and 
the  obedience  of  faith,"  &;c,  thereby  making  the  end  of  election  to  be 
faith :  in  other  words  their  doctrine  is,  that  some  men  were  personally 
chosen  to  believe  and  obey,  even  before  they  existed.  But  we  have  no 
such  doctrine  in  Scripture  as  the  election  of  individuals  unto  faith ;  and 
it  is  inconsistent  with  several  passages  which  expressly  speak  of  per- 
sonal election. 

*'  Many  are  called  but  few  chosen."  In  this  passage  we  must  under- 
stand, that  the  many  who  are  called,  are  called  to  believe  and  obey  the 
Gospel,  or  the  calling  means  nothing ;  in  other  words  they  are  not 
called.  But  if  the  end  of  this  calling  be  faith  and  obedience,  and  the 
end  of  election  also  be  faith  and  obedience,  then  have  we  in  the  text  a 
senseless  tautology ;  for  if  the  many  are  called  to  believe  and  obey, 
then,  of  course,  we  need  not  have  been  told  that  the  few  are  chosen  to 
believe  and  obey,  since  the  few  are  included  in  the  many.  But  if  the 
"  choosing"  of  the  "  few"  means,  as  it  must,  something  different  to  the 
^'  calling"  of  the  "  many,"  then  is  the  end  of  election  different  to  the 
end  of  calling ;  and  if  the  election  be,  as  is  plain  from  the  passage, 
consequent  upon  the  calling,  then  it  can  mean  nothing  else  than  the 
choosing  of  those  "  few,"  of  the  "  many,"  who  being  obedient  to  the 
"  calling,"  had  previously  beheved  and  obeyed,  into  the  true  Church  and 
family  of  God,  which  is  the  proper  and  direct  object  of  personal  elec- 
tion. This  passage,  therefore,  which  unquestionably  speaks  of  personal 
election,  contradicts  the  notion  of  an  election  unto  faith  and  obedience, 
and  makes  our  election  consequent  upon  our  obedience  to  the  calhng,  or 
evangelical  invitation. 

Let  this  notion  of  personal  election  unto  faith  be  tested  also  by  another 
passage,  in  which,  like  the  former,  personal  election  is  spoken  of.  "  I 
have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world,"  John  xv,  19.  According  to  the 
notion  of  the  synod  of  Dort,  the  act  of  election  consists  in  appointing  or 
ordaining  a  certain  number  of  the  human  race  to  believe  and  obey : 
here  the  personal  electing  act  is  a  choosing  out  of  the  world,  a  choos- 
ing,  manifestly,  into  the  number  of  Christ's  disciples,  which  no  man  is 
capable  of  without  a  previous  faith  ;  for  the  very  act  of  becoming  Christ's 
disciple  was  a  confession"  of  faith  in  him. 

A  third  passage,  in  which  election  is  spoken  of  as  personal,  or  at 
least  with  more  direct  reference  to  individual  experience,  than  to  Chris- 


348  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

tians  in  their  collective  capacity  as  the  Church  of  Christ,  is  1  Peter  i,  2, 
"  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience,  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus  !"  Here  obedience  is  not  the  end  of  election,  but  of  the  sanc- 
tification of  the  Spirit ;  and  both  are  joined  "  with  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus,"  (which,  in  all  cases,  is  apprehended  by  faith,)  as  the 
media  through  which  our  election  is  effected — "  elect  through  sanctifi- 
cation of  the  Spirit,"  &;c.  These  cannot,  therefore,  be  the  ends  of  our 
personal  election ;  for  if  we  are  elected  "  through"  that  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit  which  produces  obedience,  we  are  not  elected,  being  un- 
sanctified  and  disobedient,  in  order  to  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  that  we 
may  obey :  it  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  which  produces  obedient  faith, 
and  through  both  we  are  "  elected"  into  the  Church  of  God. 

Very  similar  to  the  passage  just  explained  is  2  Thess.  ii,  13,  14, 
"  But  we  are  bound  to  give  thanks  alway  to  God  for  you,  brethren, 
because  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  unto  salvation, 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth ;  whereunto 
he  called  you  by  our  Gospel  to  the  obtaining  of  the  glory  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  As  the  apostle  had  been  predicting  the  future  apostasy 
of  persons  professing  Christianity,  he  recollects,  with  gratitude,  that 
from  "  the  heginning"  from  the  very  first  reception  of  the  Gospel  in 
Thessalonica,  which  was  preached  there  by  St.  Paul  himself  with  great 
success,  the  Thessalonians  had  manifested  no  symptoms  of  this  apostasy, 
but  had  been  honourably  steadfast  in  the  faith.  For  this  he  gives  thanks 
to  God  in  the  verses  above  quoted,  and  in  the  15th  exhorts  them  still 
"to  stand  fast."  When,  therefore,  Calvinistic  commentators  interpret 
the  clause  "  hath  chosen  you  from  the  beginning,"  to  mean  election 
from  eternity,  they  make  a  gratuitous  assumption  which  has  nothing  in 
the  scope  of  the  passage  to  warrant  it.  Mr.  Scott,  indeed,  {Notes  in 
Joe.)  rather  depends  upon  the  "  calling"  of  the  Thessalonians  being,  as 
he  states,  subsequent  to  their  election,  than  upon  an  arbitrary  interpre- 
tation of  the  clause  "  from  the  beginning"  and  says,  "  if  the  calling  of 
the  Thessalonians  was  the  effect  of  any  preceding  choice  of  them,  it 
comes  to  the  same  thing  whether  the  choice  was  made  the  preceding 
<lay,  or  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  But  the  calHng  of  the 
members  of  this  Church  is  not  represented  by  the  apostle  as  the  effect 
of  their  having  been  chosen,  but  on  the  contrary,  their  election  is  spoken 
of  as  the  effect  of  "  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  of  the 
truth  ;"  and  these,  as  the  effects  of  the  calling  of  the  Thessalonians  by 
the  Gospel, — "  whereunto,"  to  which  sanctification  and  faith,  "  he  called 
you  by  our  Gospel."  Or.  the  whole  may  be  considered  as  the  antece- 
dent to  the  next  clause  "  to  which"  election  from  the  beginning,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  of  the  truth,  "  he  called  you  by 
our  Gospel."     Certain  it  is,  that  sanctification  and  belief  of  the  truth 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  349 

cannot  be  the  ends  of  election  if  they  are  the  means  of  it,  as  they  are 
here  said  to  be  ;  and  we  nraay  therefore  conclude  from  this,  as  well  as 
from  the  other  passages  we  have  quoted  as  speaking  of  the  personal 
election  of  believers,  that  this  kind  of  election  is  not  "  unto  faith  and 
obedience,"  as  stated  in  "The  Judgment  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,"  that  is, 
a  choice  of  individuals  to  be  made  believers  and  obedient  persons ;  but 
an  election,  as  it  is  expressed  both  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  through 
faith  and  obedience  ;  or,  in  other  words,  a  choice  of  persons  already 
believing  and  obedient  into  the  family  of  God. 

There  are  scarcely  any  other  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  which 
speak  expressly  of  personal  election ;  but  there  is  another  class  of  texts 
in  which  the  term  election  occurs,  which  refer  to  believers,  not  distri- 
butively,  but  collectively ;  not  personally,  but  as  a  body,  cither  existing 
as  particular  Churches,  or  as  the  universal  Church ;  and,  by  entirely 
overlooking,  or  ingeniously  confounding  this  obvious  distinction,  the 
advocates  of  unconditional  personal  election  bring  forward  such  passages 
with  confidence,  as  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  election  iirito  faith  furnished 
by  the  word  of  God.  Thus  the  synod  of  Dort  quotes,  as  the  leading 
proof  of  its  doctrine  of  personal  election,  Eph.  i,  4,  5,  6,  "  According  as 
he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we 
should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  him  in  love  :  having  predesti- 
nated us  unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  himself, 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of 
his  grace,  wherein  he  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  beloved."  This, 
indeed,  is  the  only  passage  quoted  by  the  synod  of  Dort,  in  which  the 
terms  chosen  and  election  occur  ;  and,  we  may  ask,  why  none  of  those 
on  which  we  have  above  offered  some  remarks,  were  quoted  also,  since 
the  subject  of  personal  election  is  much  more  obviously  contained  in 
them  than  in  that  which  they  have  adduced  ?  The  only  answer  is,  that 
the  others  were  perceived  not  to  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  "  election 
unto  faith  and  obedience ;"  while  this,  in  which  the  personal  election' 
of  individual  believers  is  not  referred  to,  but  the  collective  election  of 
the  whole  body  of  Christians,  was  better  suited  to  give  a  colour  to  their 
doctrine,  because  it  speaks,  of  course,  and  as  the  subject  required,  of 
election  as  the  means  of  faith,  and  of  faith  as  the  end  of  election,  an 
order  which  is  reversed  when  the  election  of  individuals,  or  the  election- 
of  any  body  of  behevers,  considered  disfributively  and  personally,  is  the' 
subject  of  the  apostle's  discourse.  If,  indeed,  the  election  spoken  of  in 
this  passage  were  personal  election,  the  Calvijiistic  doctrine  would  not 
follow  from  it ;  because  it  would  admit  of  being  questioned,  whether 
the  choosing  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  here  men- 
tioned, was  a  choice  of  certain  persons,  as  men  merely,  or  as  believing 
men,  which  is  surely  the  most  rational.  For  all  choice  necessarily  sup- 
poses  some  reason ;  but,  as  men,  all  things  were  equal  between  those 

2 


350  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

who,  according  to  this  scheme,  were  chosen,  and  those  who  were  passed 
by.  But,  according  to  the  Calvinists,  this  election  was  made  arbitrarily, 
that  is  without  any  reason,  but  that  God  would  have  it  so ;  and  to  this 
sense  they  bend  the  clause  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  "  accord- 
ing to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will."  This  phrase  has,  however,  no 
such  arbitrary  sense.  "  The  good  pleasure  of  his  will"  means  the  bene- 
volent and  full  acquiescence  of  the  will  of  God  with  a  wise  and  gracious 
act;  and,  accordingly,  in  verse  11,  the  phrase  is  varied  "according  to 
the  COUNSEL  of  his  own  will,"  an  expression  which  is  at  utter  variance 
with  the  repulsive  notion  that  mere  will  is  in  any  case  the  rule  of  the 
Divine  conduct,  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  does  any  thing  merely  be- 
cause  he  will  do  it,  which  excludes  all  "  counsel."  To  choose  men  to 
salvation  considered  as  believers,  gives  a  reason  for  election  which  not 
only  manifests  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  but  has  the  advantage 
of  being  entirely  consistent  with  his  own  published  and  express  decree : 
"  he  that  believeth  shall  be  saved :  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  This  revealed  and  promulgated  decree,  we  must  believe, 
w  as  according  to  his  eternal  purpose  ;  and  if  from  eternity  he  deter- 
mined  that  believers,  and  only  believers  in  Christ,  among  the  fallen  race, 
should  be  saved,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  those  whom  he  chose 
in  Christ  "  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  were  considered,  not  as 
men  merely,  which  gives  no  reason  of  choice  worthy  of  any  rational 
being,  much  less  of  the  ever  blessed  God ;  but  as  believing  men,  which 
harmonizes  the  doctrine  of  election  with  the  other  doctrines  of  Scrip- 
ture, instead  of  placing  it,  as  in  the  Calvinistic  scheme,  in  opposition  to 
them.  For  the  choice  not  being  of  certain  men,  as  such ;  but  of  all 
persons  believing ;  and  all  men  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached,  being 
called  to  believe,  every  one  may  place  himself  in  the  number  of  the 
persons  so  elected.  Thus  we  get  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of 
a  set  and  determinate  number  of  men  ;  and  with  that,  of  the  fearful  con- 
sequence, the  absolute  reprobation  of  all  the  rest,  which  so  few  Calvin- 
ists themselves  have  the  courage  to  avow  and  maintain. 

But  though  this  argument  might  be  very  successfully  urged  against 
those  who  interpret  the  passage  above  quoted  of  personal  election,  the 
context  bears  unequivocal  proofs  that  it  is  not  of  an  election  or  predes>. 
tination  of  this  kind  of  which  the  apostle  speaks ;  but  of  the  election 
of  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  into  the  Church  of  God  ;  in  other  words, 
of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  upon  the  publication  of  the  Gospel,  to 
constitute  his  visible  Church  no  longer  upon  the  ground  of  natural  de- 
scent from  Abraham,  but  upon  the  foundation  of  faith  in  Christ.  For 
upon  no  other  hypothesis  can  that  distinction  which  the  apostle  makes 
between  the  Jews  who  first  behoved,  and  the  Gentile  Ephesians,  who 
afterward  believed,  be  at  all  explained.  He  speaks  first  of  the  election 
of  Christians  in  general,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles;  using  the  pro- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  351 

nouns  "  us"  and  "  we"  as  comprehending  himself  and  all  others.  He 
then  proceeds  to  the  "  predestination"  of  those  "  who  first  trusted  in 
Christ :"  plainly  meaning  himself  and  other  believing  Jews.  He  goes 
on  to  say,  that  the  Ephesians  were  made  partakers  of  the  same  faith, 
and  therefore  were  the  subjects  of  the  same  election  and  predestination  : 
"  in  whom  ye  also  trusted  after  that  ye  heard  the  word  of  truth  :"  the 
preaching  of  which  truth  to  them  as  U entiles,  by  the  apostle  and  his 
coadjutors,  was,  in  consequence  of  God  "  having  made  known  unto  them 
the  mystery  of  his  will,  that  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times 
he  might  gather  together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ ;"  which,  in  the  next 
chapter,  a  manifest  continuance  of  the  same  head  of  discourse,  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  the  calling  in  of  the  Gentiles  with  the  believing  Jews, 
reconciling  "  both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the 
enemity  thereby."  The  same  subject  he  pursues  in  the  third  chapter, 
representing  this  union  of  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  one  Church  as 
the  revelation  of  the  mystery  which  had  been  hid  "  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world  ;"  but  was  now  manifested  "according  to  the  eternal  pur- 
pose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,"  verses  8-11.  Here 
then  we  have  the  true  meaning  of  the  election  and  predestination  of  the 
Ephesians  spoken  of  in  the  opening  of  the  epistle  :  it  was  their  election, 
as  Gentiles,  to  be,  along  with  the  believing  Jews,  the  Church  of  God, 
his  acknowledged  people  on  earth  ;  which  election  was,  according  to 
God's  "  eternal  purpose,"  to  change  the  constitution  of  his  Church  ;  to 
establish  it  on  the  ground  of  faith  in  Christ ;  and  thus  to  extend  it  into 
all  nations.  So  far  as  this  respected  the  Ephesians  in  general,  their 
election  to  hear  the  Gospel  sooner  than  many  other  Gentiles  was  uncon- 
ditional and  sovereign,  and  was  an  election  "  unto  faith  and  obedience 
of  faith  ;"  that  is  to  say,  these  were  the  ends  of  that  election  ;  but  so  far 
as  the  Ephesians  were  concerned,  as  individuals,  they  were  actually 
chosen  into  the  Church  of  Christ  as  its  vital  members,  on  their  believ. 
ing ;  and  so  the  election  to  the  saving  benefits  of  the  Gospel  was  a 
consequence  of  their  faith,  and  not  the  end  of  it,  and  was  therefore  con- 
ditional— "  in  whom  also  ye  trusted,  after  that  ye  heard  the  word  of 
truth,  the  Gospel  of  your  salvation  ;  in  whom  also,  after  that  ye  believed, 
ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise." 

The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election  unto  faith  has  no  stronger  passage 
than  this  to  lean  upon  for  support ;  and  this  manifestly  fails  them  :  while 
other  passages  in  which  the  terms  election,  or  chosen  occur,  all  favour 
a  very  difierent  view  of  the  Scripture  doctrine.  When  we  are  com- 
manded to  be  diligent  "to  make  our  calling  and  election  sure,"  or  firm, 
this  supposes  that  it  may  be  rendered  nugatory  by  want  of  diligence  ; 
a  doctrine  which  cannot  comport  with  the  absolute  certainty  of  our  sal- 
vation as  founded  upon  a  decree  determining,  infallibly,  our  personal 
election  to  eternal  life,  and  our  faith  and  obedience  in  order  to  it.   When 

2 


352  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  {PART 

believers  are  called  a  "  chosen  generation,"  they  are  also  called  "  a  royal 
priesthood,  a  holy  people  ;"  and  if  the  latter  characteristics  depend  upon, 
and  are  consequences  oi  faith,  so  the  former  depends  upon  a  previous 
faith,  and  is  the  consequence  of  it.  Finally,  although  these  terms  them- 
selves occur  in  but  few  passages,  and  in  all  of  them  which  respect  the 
personal  experience  of  individuals  express,  or  necessarily  imply,  the 
previous  condition  of  faith,  there  are  many  others,  which,  in  different 
terms,  embody  the  same  doctrine.  The  phrases  to  be  "  in  Christ," 
and  to  be  "  Christ's,"  are,  doubtless,  equivalent  to  the  personal  election 
of  believers  :  and  these,  and  similar  modes  of  expression,  are  constantly 
occurring  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  no  man  is  ever  represented  as 
*'  Christ's,"  or  as  "  in  Christ,"  by  an  eternal  election  unto  faith  ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  as  entering  into  that  relation  which  is  termed  being  "  in 
Christ ;"  or  being  "  ChrisCs,'''  through  personal  faith  alone.  The  Scrip- 
ture knows  no  such  distinctions  as  elect  unbelievers,  and  elect  believers ; 
but  all  unbelievers  are  represented  as  "  of  the  world  ;"  under  "  condem- 
nation," so  that  "  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  upon  them ;"  and  as  liable 
to  eternal  ruin.  But  if  Calvinistic  election  be  true,  then  there  are  elect 
unbelievers  ;  and  with  respect  to  these,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  is  con- 
tradicted :  for  they  are  not  "  of  the  world,"  though  in  a  state  of  unbe- 
lief, since  God  from  eternity  "  chose  them  out  of  the  world  ;"  they  are 
not  under  condemnation,  "  but  were  justified  from  eternity  ;"  "  the  wrath 
of  God  does  not  abide  upon  them,"  for  they  are  objects  of  an  unchange- 
able love  which  has  decreed  their  salvation  :  subject  to  no  conditions 
whatever  ;  and  therefore  no  state  of  unbelief  can  make  them  objects  of 
wrath,  as  no  condition  of  faith  can  make  them  objects  of  a  love  which 
was  moved  by  no  such  consideration.  Nor  are  they  liable  to  ruin. 
They  never  were,  nor  can  be  liable  to  it :  the  very  threats  of  God  are 
without  meaning  as  to  them,  and  their  consciousness  of  guilt  and  danger 
under  the  awakenings  of  the  Spirit  are  deceptious,  and  unreal ;  contra- 
dicting the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  man,  as  the  Spirit  of 
TRUTH.  For  if  he  "  convinces  them  of  sin,"  he  convinces  them  of  dan- 
ger ;  but  they  are,  in  fact,  in  no  danger ;  and  the  monstrous  conclusion 
follows  inevitably,  that  the  Spirit  is  employed  in  exciting  fears  which 
have  no  foundation. 

We  have  thus  considered  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  election ;  and  as 
Ive  find  nothing  in  it  which  can  warrant  any  one  to  Umit  the  meaning 
of  the  texts  we  have  adduced  to  prove  that  Christ  made  an  actual  atone- 
tnent  for  the  sins  of  all  mankind,  we  may  proceed  to  examine  another 
class  of  Scripture  proofs  quoted  by  Calvinists  to  strengthen  their  argu- 
ment:— those  which  speak  of  the  *^  calling, ^^  and  ^^predestination"  of 
believers. 

The  terms  "  to  call,"  "  called,"  and  "  calling,"  very  frequently  occur 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  in  the  epistles.  Sometimes  "  to 
2 


I 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  353 

call"  signifies  to  invite  to  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  to  offer  salvation 
through  Christ,  either  by  God  himself,  or  under  his  appointment,  by  his 
servants ;  and  in  the  parable  of  the  marriage  of  the  king's  son,  Matt, 
xxii,  1-14,  which  appears  to  have  given  rise  to  many  instances  of  the 
use  of  this  term  in  the  epistles,  we  have  three  descriptions  of  "  called" 
or  invited  persons.  First,  the  disobedient  who  would  not  come  in  at 
the  call ;  but  made  light  of  it.  Second,  the  class  of  persons  represent- 
ed by  the  man  who,  when  the  king  came  in  to  see  his  guests,  had  not 
on  the  wedding  garment ;  and  with  respect  to  whom  our  Lord  makes  the 
general  remark,  "  for  many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen."  The  per- 
sons thus  represented  by  this  individual  culprit,  were  not  only  "  called," 
but  actually  came  into  the  company.  Third,  the  approved  guests ; 
those  who  were  both  called  and  chosen.  As  far  as  the  simple  callings 
or  invitation,  is  concerned,  all  these  three  classes  stand  upon  equal 
ground ;  all  were  invited ;  and  it  depended  upon  their  choice  and  con- 
duct whether  they  embraced  the  invitation,  and  were  admitted  as  guests. 
We  have  nothing  here  to  countenance  the  Calvinistic  fiction,  which  is 
termed  "  effectual  calUng."  This  implies  an  irresistible  influence  ex- 
erted upon  all  the  approved  guests,  but  withheld  from  the  disobedient, 
who  could  not,  therefore,  be  otherwise  than  disobedient ;  or  at  most 
could  only  come  in  v/ithout  that  wedding  garment,  which  it  was  never 
put  into  their  power  to  take  out  of  the  king's  wardrobe ;  the  want  of 
which  would  necessarily  exclude  them,  if  not  from  the  Church  on 
earth,  yet  from  the  Church  in  heaven.  The  doctrine  of  the  parable  is 
in  entire  contradiction  to  this  ;  for  they  who  refused,  and  they  who  com- 
phed  but  partially  with  the  calling,  are  represented,  not  merely  as  being 
lefi;  without  the  benefit  of  the  feast ;  but  as  incurring  additional  guilt 
and  condemnation  for  refusing  the  invitation.  It  is  to  this  offer  of  sal- 
vation by  the  Gospel,  this  invitation  to  spiritual  and  eternal  benefits,  that 
St.  Peter  appears  to  refer,  when  he  says.  Acts  ii,  39,  "  For  the  promise 
is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call  :"  a  passage  which,  we  may  ob- 
serve, in  passing,  declares  "  the  promise"  to  be  as  extensive  as  the  "  call- 
ing ;"  in  other  words,  as  the  offer  or  invitation.  To  this  also  St.  Paul 
refers,  Rom.  i,  5,  6,  "  By  whom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostle- 
ship  for  obedience  to  the  faith  among  all  nations,  for  his  name ;"  that 
is,  to  publish  his  Gospel,  in  order  to  bring  all  nations  to  the  obedience 
of  faith  ;  "  among  whom  are  ye  also  the  called  of  Jesus  Christ ;"  you 
at  Rome  have  heard  the  Gospel,  and  have  been  invited  to  salvation  in 
consequence  of  this  design.  This  promulgation  of  the  Gospel,  by  the 
ministry  of  the  apostle,  personally,  under  the  name  of  calling,  is  also 
referred  to  in  Galatians,  i,  6,  "  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  removed 
from  him  that  called  you  into  the  grace  of  Christ,"  (obviously  meaning 
that  it  was  the  apostle  himself  who  had  called  them  by  his  preaching 
Vol.  IL  23 


354  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fPARf 

to  the  grace  of  Christ,)  «  unto  another  Gospel."  So  also  in  chapter  v, 
13,  "  For,  brethren,  ye  have  been  called  unto  liberty."  Agam,  1  Thess. 
ii,  12,  "That  ye  would  wEilk  worthy  of  God,  who  hath  called  you 
[invited  you]  to  his  kingdom  and  glory." 

In  our  Lord's  parable  it  will  also  be  observed,  that  the  persons  called 
are  not  invited  as  separate  individuals  to  partake  of  solitary  blessings ; 
but  they  are  called  to  "  a  feast,"  into  a  company,  or  society,  before 
whom  the  banquet  is  spread.  The  full  revelation  of  the  transfer  of  the 
visible  Church  of  Christ  from  Jews  by  birth,  to  believers  of  all  nations, 
was  not,  however,  then  made.  When  this  branch  of  the  evangelic 
system  was  fully  revealed  to  the  apostles,  and  taught  by  them  to  others, 
that  part  of  our  Lord's  parable  which  was  not  at  first  developed,  was 
more  particularly  inculcated  by  his  inspired  followers.  The  calling  of 
guests  to  the  evangelical  feast,  we  now  more  fully  learn,  was  not  the 
mere  calling  of  men  to  partake  of  spiritual  benefits ;  but  calUng  them 
also  to  form  a  spiritual  society  composed  of-  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the 
believing  men  of  all  nations ;  to  have  a  common  fellowship  in  these 
blessings,  and  to  be  formed  into  this  fellowship  for  the  purpose  of 
increasing  their  number,  and  diffusing  the  benefits  of  salvation  among 
the  people  or  nation  to  which  they  respectively  belonged.  The  invita- 
tion, "  the  calling"  of  the  first  preachers,  was  to  all  who  heard  them  in 
Rome,  in  Ephesus,  in  Corinth,  in  all  other  places ;  and  those  who  em- 
braced it,  and  joined  themselves  to  the  Church  by  faith,  baptism,  and 
continued  pubhc  profession,  were  named  especially  and  eminently  "  the 
CALLED ;"  because  of  their  obedience  to  the  invitation.  They  not  only 
put  in  their  claim  to  the  blessings  of  Christianity  individually  ;  but 
became  members  of  the  new  Church,  that  spiritual  society  of  beUevers 
which  God  now  visibly  owned  as  his  people.  As  they  were  thus  called 
into  a  common  fellowship  by  the  Gospel,  this  is  sometimes  termed  their 
"  vocation  :"  as  the  object  of  this  Church  state  was  to  promote  "  holi- 
ness," it  is  termed  a  "  holy  vocation :"  as  sanctity  was  required  of  the 
members,  they  are  said  to  have  been  "  called  to  be  saints  :"  as  the  final 
result  was,  through  the  mercy  of  God,  to  be  eternal  life,  we  hear  of 
"  the  hope  of  their  calling  ;"  and  of  their  being  "  called  to  his  eternal 
glory  by  Christ  Jesus." 

These  views  will  abundantly  explain  the  various  passages  in  which 
the  term  "  calling"  occurs  in  the  epistles,  Rom.  ix,  24,  "  Even  us  whom 
he  hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles ;"  that  is, 
whom  he  hath  made  members  of  his  Church  through  faith.  1  Cor. 
i,  24,  "  But  unto  them  which  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ 
the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God ;"  the  wisdom  and  efiicacy 
of  the  Gospel  being,  of  course,  acknowledged  in  their  very  profession 
of  Christ,  in  opposition  to  those  to  whom  the  preaching  of  "  Christ  cru- 
cified," was  "  a  stumbling  block,"  and  "  foohshness."     1  Cor.  vii,  18, 


iSECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  355 

"  Is  any  man  called  ;"  (brcmght  to  acknowledge  Christ,  and  to  become 
a  member  of  his  Church  ;)  "  being  circumcised,  let  him  not  become 
uncircumcised  :  is  any  called  in  uncircumcision,  let  him  not  be  cir- 
cumcised." Eph.  iv,  1-4,  "  That  ye  walk  worthy  of  the  vocation 
wherewith  ye  are  called.  There  is  one  body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as 
ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling."  1  Thess.  ii,  12,  "That 
ye  would  walk  worthy  of  God,  who  hath  called  you  to  his  kingdom 
and  glory."  2  Thess.  ii,  13,  14,  "Through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth,  whereunto  he  called  you  by  our  Gospel,  to  the 
obtaining  of  the  glory  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  2  Tim.  i,  9,  10, 
"  Who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling  ;  not  according 
to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was 
given  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  before  the  world  began ;  but  is  now  made 
manifest  by  the  appearing  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ :"  on  which  pas- 
sage we  may  remark,  that  the  object  of  the  "  calling,"  and  the  "  pur- 
pose," mentioned  in  it,  must  of  necessity  be  interpreted  to  mean  the 
establishment  of  the  Church  on  the  principle  of  faith ;  and  not,  as  for- 
merly^  on  natural  descent.  For  personal  election,  and  a  purpose  of 
effectual  personal  calling,  could  not  have  been  hidden  till  manifested  by 
the  appearing  of  Christ ;  since  every  instance  of  true  conversion  to 
God  in  any  age  prior  to  the  appearing  of  Christ,  would  be  as  much  a 
manifestation  of  eternal  election,  and  an  instance  of  personal  effectual 
calling,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  scheme,  as  it  was  after  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ.  The  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  purpose  of  God,  which 
was  kept  secret  till  revealed  by  the  Christian  system ;  and,  from  various 
other  parallel  passages  we  learn  that  this  secret,  this  "  mystery,"  as  he 
often  calls  it,  was  the  union  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  "  one  body,"  or 
Church,  by  faith. 

In  none  of  these  passages  is  the  doctrine  of  the  exclusive  calling  of 
any  set  number  of  men  contained ;  and  the  synod  of  Dort,  as  though 
they  felt  this,  only  attempt  to  reason  the  doctrine  from  a  text  not  yet 
quoted ;  but  which  we  will  now  examine.  It  is  Rom  viii,  30  :  "  Whom 
he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called ;  and  whom  he  called,  them  he 
also  justified  ;  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."  This  is 
the  text  on  which  Calvinists  chiefly  rest  their  doctrine  of  effectual 
calling ;  and  tracing  it  as  they  say,  through  its  steps  and  links,  they 
conclude,  that  a  set  and  determinate  number  of  persons  having  been 
predestinated  unto  salvation,  this  set  number  only  are  called  effectually, 
then  justified,  and  finally  glorified.  The  words  of  the  synod  of  Dort 
are,  "  He  hath  chosen  a  set  number  of  certain  men,  neither  better,  nor 
more  worthy  than  others ;  but  lying  in  the  common  misery  with  others, 
to  salvation  in  Christ,  whom  he  had  also  appointed  the  Mediator  and 
Head  of  the  elect ;  and  the  foundation  of  salvation  from  all  eternity ; 
and  so  he  decreed  to  give  them  to  him  to  be  saved ;  and  effectually  to 

2 


356  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fPART 

call,  and  draw  them  to  a  communion  with  him,  by  his  word  and  Spirit ; 
or  to  give  them  a  true  faith  in  him :  to  justify,  sanctify,  and  finally 
glorify  them ;  having  been  kept  in  the  communion  of  his  Son,  to  the 
demonstration  of  his  mercy,  and  the  praise  of  the  riches  of  his  glo- 
rious grace."  (4) 

The  text  under  consideration  is  added  by  the  synod,  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  this  article ;  but  it  was  evidently  nothing  to  the  purpose, 
unless  it  had  spoken  of  a  set  and  determinate  number  of  men  as  predes- 
tinated and  called,  independent  of  any  consideration  of  their  faith  and 
obedience ;  which  number,  as  being  determinate,  would,  by  conse- 
quence, exclude  the  rest.  As  these  are  points  on  which  the  text  is  at 
least  silent,  there  is  nothing  in  it  unfriendly  to  those  arguments  founded 
on  explicit  texts  of  holy  writ,  which  have  been  already  urged  against 
this  view  of  election  ;  and  with  this  notion  of  election  is  refuted,  also, 
the  cognate  doctrine  of  effectual  calhng,  considered  as  a  work  of  God 
in  the  heart,  of  which  the  elect  only  can  be  the  subjects.  But  the  pas- 
sage, having  been  pressed  into  so  alien  a  service,  deserves  considera- 
tion ;  and  it  will  be  found  that  it  indeed  speaks  of  the  privileges  and 
hopes  of  true  believers ;  but  not  of  those  privileges  and  hopes  as 
secured  to  them  by  any  such  decree  of  electicm  as  the  synod  has  advo- 
cated. To  prove  this,  we  remark,  1.  That  the  chapter  in  which  the 
text  is  found,  is  the  lofty  and  animating  conclusion  of  St.  Paul's  argu- 
ment on  justification  by  faith :  it  is  a  discourse  of  that  present  state  of 
pardon  and  sanctity,  and  of  that  future  hope  of  felicity,  into  which  jus- 
tification introduces  believers,  notwithstanding  those  sufferings  and  per- 
secutions of  the  present  life  to  which  those  to  whom  he  wrote  were 
exposed,  and  under  which  they  had  need  of  encouragement.  It  was, 
obviously,  not  in  his  design  here  to  speak  of  the  doctrines  of  election 
and  non-election,  however  these  doctrines  may  be  understood.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  course  of  his  argument  which  leads  to  them ;  and  those 
who  make  use  of  the  text  in  question  for  this  purpose  are  obhged,  there- 
fore, to  press  it,  by  circuitous  inference,  into  their  service. 

2.  As  the  passage  stands  in  intimate  connection  with  an  important 
and  elucidatory  context,  it  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  insulated  and 
complete  in  itself;  which  has  been  the  great  source  of  erroneous  inter- 
pretations. Under  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time,  the  apostle  encou- 
rages  those  who  had  beheved  with  tho  hope  of  a  glorious  resurrection : 
this  forms  the  subject  of  his  consolatory  remarks  from  verse  17  to  25. 
The  assistance  and  "  intercession"  of  the  Spirit ;  and  the  working  of 
"all  things  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to  them  who 
are  the  called  according  to  his  purpose;"  clearly  meaning  those 
who,  according  to  the  Divine  design,  had  received  and  embraced  the 

(4)  Sententia  de  Divina  Proedest.  Art.  7.  Est  autem  Electio  immutabile  Dei 
propositum,  &i^c. 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  357 

Gospel  in  truth,  form  two  additional  topics  of  consolatory  suggestion. — 
The  passage  under  consideration  immediately  follows,  and  is  in  full,  for 
the  synod  has  quoted  it  short :  "  And  we  know  that  all  things  work  toge- 
ther  for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to  them  who  are  the  called  (who 
are  called)  according  to  his  purpose.  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he 
also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he 
might  be  the  first  born  among  many  brethren.  Moreover,  whom  he  did 
predestinate,  them  he  also  called ;  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also 
justified  ;  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."  The  connec- 
tion is  here  manifest.  "  The  sufferings  of  the  present  time  could  only 
work  together  for  the  good"  of  them  that  "  love  God,"  by  being  con- 
nected with,  and  compensated  in  a  future  state  by  a  glorious  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead  ;  and  therefore  the  apostle  shows  that  this  was  the 
design  of  God,  the  ultimate  and  triumphant  result  of  the  administration 
of  his  grace,  that  they  who  love  God  here,  should  be  conformed  to  the 
image  of  his  Son,  in  his  glorified  state,  that  he  might  be  "  the  first  bom 
among  brethren :"  the  head  and  chief  of  the  redeemed,  who  shall  be 
acknowledged  as  his  "  brethren,"  and  co-heirs  of  his  glory.  Thus  the 
whole  of  the  29th  verse  is  a  reason  given  to  show  why  "  all  things,  how- 
ever painful  in  the  present  Hfe,  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love 
God  ;"  and  it  is  therefore  introduced  by  the  connective  particle,  otj, 
■which  has  here,  obviously,  a  casual  signification,  ^^for  {because)  whom 
he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate." 

3.  The  apostle  is  here  speaking,  we  grant,  not  of  the  foreknowledge 
or  predestination  of  bodies  of  men  to  Church  privileges ;  but  of  the  ex- 
perience of  believers,  taken  distributively  and  personally.  This  will, 
however,  be  found  to  strengthen  our  argument  against  the  use  made  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  passage  by  the  synod  of  Dort. 

It  is  affirmed  of  believers,  that  they  were  '-^  foreknown ^  This  term 
may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  foreapproved.  For  not  only  is  it  common 
with  the  sacred  writers  to  express  approval  by  the  phrase  "  to  hiow  ;" 
of  which  Hebraism  the  instances  are  many  in  the  New  Testament ;  but 
in  Rom.  xi,  2,  "  to  foreknow,"  is  best  interpreted  into  this  meaning. — 
<'God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  which  he  foreknew."  It  is 
not  of  the  whole  people  of  Israel  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  as 
the  context  shows ;  but  of  the  beheving  part  of  them,  called  subse- 
quently  "  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace :"  a  clause 
which  has  been  before  explained.  The  question  put  by  the  apostle  into 
the  mouth  of  an  objecting  Jew,  is,  "  Hath  God  cast  away  his  people  ?" 
This  is  denied ;  but  the  illustration  taken  from  the  reservation  of  seven 
thousand  men,  in  the  time  of  Elijah,  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to 
Baal,  proves  that  St.  Paul  meant  to  say,  that  God  had  cast  off  from 
being  members  of  his  Church,  all  but  the  remnant ;  all  but  his  people 
whom  he  ''foreknew ;"  those  who  had  laid  aside  the  inveterate  preju- 


358  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

dices  of  their  nation,  and  had  entered  into  the  new  Christian  Church  by 
faith.  These  he  foreknew,  that  is  approved ;  and  so  received  them 
into  his  Church.  In  this  sense  of  the  term  foreknew,  the  text  in  ques- 
tion harmonizes  weil  with  the  context.  "  All  things  work  together  for 
good  to  them  that  love  God,"  &;c.  "  For,  whom  he  did  foreknow," 
(approve  as  lovers  of  him,)  "  he  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the 
image  of  his  Son,"  in  mind  and  tenjper  here,  and  especially  in  glory 
hereafter. 

The  second  sense  of  foreknowing  is  that  of  simple  prescience ;  and 
if  any  prefer  this  we  shall  not  dispute  with  him,  since  it  will  come  to 
the  same  issue.  The  foreknowledge  of  men  must  have  respect  either 
simply  to  their  existence  as  persons,  or  as  existing  under  some  particular 
circumstances  and  characters.  If  persons  only  be  the  objects  of  this 
foreknowledge,  then  has  God's  prescience  no  more  to  do  with  the  salva- 
tion of  the  elect  than  of  the  non-elect,  since  all  are  equally  foreknown 
as  persons  in  a  state  of  existence :  and  we  might  as  well  argue  the 
glorification  of  the  reprobate  from  God's  foreknowing  them,  in  this 
sense,  as  that  of  the  elect.  The  objects  of  this  foreknowledge,  then, 
must  be  men  under  certain  circumstances  and  characters ;  not  in  their 
simple  existence  as  rational  beings.  If,  therefore,  the  term  "  foreknow," 
in  the  passage  above  cited,  "  God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  whom 
he  foreknew^''  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  prescience,  those  of  the  general 
mass  of  Jews,  who  were  not  "  cast  away,"  were  foreknown  under  some 
circumstance  and  character  which  distinguished  them  from  the  others ; 
and  what  this  was  is  made  sufficiently  plain  from  the  context, — the  per- 
sons foreknown  were  the  then  believing  part  of  the  Jews,  "  even  so  then, 
at  this  present  time  also,  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of 
grace."  Equally  clear  are  the  circumstances  and  character  under 
which,  more  generally,  the  apostle  represents  believers  as  having  been 
foreknown  in  the  text  more  immediately  under  examination.  Those 
"  whom  he  did  foreknow,"  are  manifestly  the  believers  of  whom  he 
speaks  in  the  discourse ;  and  who  are  called  in  chap,  viii,  28,  "  them 
that  love  God."  Under  some  character  he  must  have  foreknown  them, 
or  his  foreknowledge  of  them  would  not  be  special  and  distinctive ;  it 
would  afford  no  ground  from  which  to  argue  any  thing  respecting  them  ; 
it  could  make  no  difference  between  them  and  others.  This  specific 
character  is  given  by  the  apostle  ;  but  it  is  not  that  which  is  gratuitously 
assumed  by  the  synod  of  Dort,  a  selection  of  them  from  the  mass,  with- 
out respect  to  their  faith.  It  is  their  faith  itself:  for  of  believers  only 
is  St.  Paul  speaking  as  the  subjects  of  this  foreknowledge ;  and  such 
believers  too  as  "  love  God,"  and  who,  having  actually  embraced  the 
heavenly  invitation,  are  emphatically  said  to  be,  as  before  explained, 
"  called  according  to  his  purpose." 

To  predestinate,  or  to  determine  beforehand,  is  the  next  term  in  the 


1 


tBECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  359 

text ;  but  here  it  is  also  to  be  remarked,  that  the  persons  predestinated, 
or  before  determined  to  be  glorified  with  Christ,  are  the  same  persons, 
under  the  same  circumstances  and  character,  as  those  who  are  said  to 
have  been  foreknown  of  God  ;  and  what  has  been  said  under  the  former 
term,  applies,  therefore,  in  part,  to  this.  The  subjects  of  predestination 
are  the  persons  foreknown,  and  the  persons  foreknown  are  true  believers : 
foreknown  as  such,  or  they  could  not  have  been  specially  or  distinctively 
foreknown,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle.  This  predestina- 
tion, then,  is  not  of  persons  "  unto  faith  and  obedience,"  but  of  believing 
and  obedient  persons  unto  eternal  glory.  Nor  are  faith  and  obedience 
mentioned  any  where  as  the  end  of  predestination,  except  in  Ephesians 
chap,  i,  where  we  have  already  proved,  when  treating  of  election,  that 
the  predestination  spoken  of  in  that  chapter,  is  the  eternal  purpose  of 
God  to  choose  the  Gentile  Ephesians  into  his  Church,  along  with  the 
believing  Jews :  and  that  what  is  there  said  is  not  intended  of  personal, 
but  of  collective  election  and  predestination  ;  and  that  to  the  means  and 
ordinances  of  salvation.  For  the  argument,  by  which  this  is  established, 
let  the  reader  to  prevent  repetition,  turn  back. 

The  passage  before  us,  then,  declares,  that  true  beUevers  were  fore, 
known  and  predestinated  to  eternal  glory ;  and  when  the  apostle  adds, 
"  moreover  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called  ;  and  whom 
he  called,  them  he  also  justified ;  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also 
glorified ;"  he  shows  in  particular  how  the  Divine  purpose  to  glorify 
behevers  is  carried  into  eftect,  through  all  its  stages.  The  great  instru- 
ment  of  bringing  men  to  "  love  God"  is  the  Gospel ;  they  are  therefore 
CALLED,  invited  by  it,  to  this  state  and  benefit ;  the  calling  being  obeyed, 
they  are  justified  ;  and  being  justified,  and  continuing  in  that  state  of 
grace,  they  are  glorified.  This  is  the  plain  and  obvious  course  of  the 
ampUfication  pursued  by  the  apostle  ;  but  let  us  remark  how  many  un- 
scriptural  notions  the  synod  of  Dort  engrafts  upon  it.  First,  a  "  certain 
number"  of  persons,  not  as  believers,  but  as  men,  are  foreknown ;  then 
a  decree  of  predestination  to  eternal  Ufe  goes  forth  in  their  favour ;  but 
still  without  respect  to  them  as  believing  men  as  the  subjects  of  that 
decree ; — then  we  suppose,  by  another  decree,  (for  the  first  cannot  look 
at  qualities  at  all,)  and  by  a  second  predestination,  they  are  to  be  made 
believers ; — then  they  are  exclusively  "  called  :"  then  infallibly  justified ; 
and  being  justified,  are  infallibly  glorified.  In  opposition  to  these  no- 
tions, we  have  already  shown,  that  the  persons  spoken  of  are  fore- 
known and  predestinated  as  behevers,  not  as  men  or  persons ;  and  we 
may  also  oppose  Scriptural  objections  to  every  other  part  of  the  inter- 
pretation. 

As  to  calling,  we  allow  that  all  of  whom  the  apostle  speaks  are  ne- 
cessarily "  called ;"  for  since  he  is  discoursing  of  the  predestination  of 
believers  in  Christ  to  eternal  glory,  and  does  not  touch  the  question  of 

2 


360  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  salvation,  or  otherwise,  of  those  who  have  not  the  means  of  becom- 
ing such,  the  calling  of  the  Gospel  is  necessarily  supposed,  as  it  is  only 
upon  that  Divine  system  being  proposed  to  their  faith,  that  they  could 
become  believers  in  Christ.  But  though  all  such  as  the  apostle  speaks 
of  are  "  called ;"  they  are  not  the  only  persons  called  :  on  the  contrary, 
our  Lord  declares,  that "  many  are  called,  hnifew  chosen."  To  confine 
the  calling  here  spoken  of  to  those  who  are  actually  saved,  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  invent  the  fiction  of  "  effectual  calling,"  which  is  made  pecu- 
liar to  the  elect ;  but  calling  is  the  invitation,  and  oflfer,  and  publication 
of  the  Gospel :  a  bringing  men  into  a  state  of  Christian  privilege  to  be 
improved  unto  salvation,  and  not  an  operation  in  them.  Effectual  invita- 
tion,  effectual  offer,  and  effectual  publication,  are  turns  of  the  phrase 
which  sufficiently  expose  the  delusiveness  of  their  comment.  By  effec- 
tual calling,  they  mean  an  inward  compelling  of  the  mind  to  embrace 
the  outward  invitation  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  yield  to  the  inward  solicita» 
tions  of  the  Spirit  which  accompanies  it ;  but  this,  whether  true  or  false, 
is  a  totally  different  thing  from  all  that  the  New  Testament  terms  "  call- 
ing.^^  It  is  true,  that  some  embrace  the  call,  and  others  reject  it,  yet  is 
there  in  the  "  calling"  of  the  Scripture  nothing  exclusively  appropriate 
to  those  who  are  finally  saved ;  and  though  the  apostle  supposes  those 
whom  he  speaks  of  in  the  text  as  "  called,"  to  have  been  obedient,  he 
confines  not  the  calling  itself  to  them  so  as  to  exclude  others, — still 
^'  MANY  are  called."  Nor  is  the  synod  more  sound  in  assuming  that  all 
who  are  called  are  "justified."  If"  many  are  called,  and  few  chosen," 
this  assumption  is  unfounded  :  nay,  all  compliances  with  the  call  do  not 
issue  in  justification ;  for  the  man  who  not  only  heard  the  call,  but  came 
in  to  the  feast,  put  not  on  the  wedding  garment,  and  was  therefore  finally 
cast  out.  Equally  contradictory  to  the  Scripture  is  it  so  to  explain  St. 
Paul  here,  as  to  make  him  say,  that  all  who  are  justified,  are  also  glori- 
fied. The  justified  are  glorified  :  but  not,  as  we  have  seen  from  various 
texts  of  Scripture  already,  all  who  are  justified.  For  if  we  have  esta- 
blished it,  that  the  persons  who  "  turn  back  to  perdition ;"  "  make  ship- 
wreck of  faith,  and  of  a  good  conscience ;"  who  turn  out  of  the  "  way  of 
righteousness ;"  who  forget  that  they  were  ^^  purged  from  their  old  sins  ;" 
who  have  "  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the  world 
to  come;  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  were  "sanc- 
tified^^ with  the  blood  they  afterward  "counted  an  unholy  thing;"  are 
represented  by  the  apostles  to  have  been  in  a  state  of  grace  and  accept- 
ance with  God,  through  Christ;  then  all  persons  justified  are  not  infallibly 
glorified;  but  only  such  are  saved  as  "endure  to  the  end;"  and  they 
only  receive  that  "  crown  of  life"  who  are  "  faithful  unto  death." 

The  clear  reason  why  the  apostle,  having  stated  that  true  believers 
were  foreknown  and  predestinated,  introduces  also  the  order  and  method 
of  their  salvation,  was,  to  connect  that  salvation  with  the  Gospel,  and 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  361 

the  work  of  Christ ;  and  to  secure  to  him  the  glory  of  it.  The  Gospel 
reveals  it,  that  those  who  "  love  God"  shall  find  that  "  all  things  work 
together  for  their  good,"  because  (otj)  they  are  "  predestinated  to  be  con- 
formed  to  the  image  of  the  Son  of  God,"  in  his  glory  ;  yet  the  Gospel  did 
not  find  them  lovers  of  God,  but  made  them  so.  Since,  therefore,  none 
but  such  persons  were  so  foreknown  and  predestinated  to  be  heirs  of 
glory,  the  Gospel  calUng  was  issued  according  to  "  his  purpose,"  or  plan 
of  bringmg  them  that  love  him  to  glory,  in  order  to  produce  this  love  in 
them.  "  Whom'^  he  thus  called,  assuming  them  to  be  obedient  to  the 
call,  he  justified ;  "  and  whom  he  justified,"  assuming  them  to  be  faithful 
unto  death,  he  "  glorified."  But  since  the  persons  predestinated  were 
contemplated  as  believers,  not  as  a  certain  number  o^  persons ;  then  all 
to  whom  the  invitation  was  issued  might  obey  that  call,  and  all  might 
be  justified,  and  all  glorified.  In  other  words,  all  who  heard  the  Gospel 
might,  through  it,  be  brought  to  love  God ;  and  might  take  their  places 
among  those  who  were  "  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
his  Son."  For  since  the  predestination,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  of  a 
certain  number  of  persons,  but  of  all  believers  who  love  God ;  then,  either 
it  must  be  allowed  that  all  who  were  called  by  the  Gospel,  might  take 
the  character  and  circumstances  which  would  bring  them  under  the  pre- 
destination mentioned  by  the  apostle ;  or  else  those  who  deny  this  aie 
bound  to  the  conclusion,  that  God  calls  (invites)  many  whom  he  never 
intends  to  admit  to  the  celestial  feast ;  and  not  only  so,  but  punishes 
them,  with  the  severity  of  a  relentless  displeasure,  for  not  obeying  an 
invitation  which  he  never  designed  them  to  accept,  and  which  they 
never  had  the  power  to  accept.  In  other  words,  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage  by  the  s}T[iod  of  Dort  obliges  all  who  follow  it  to  admit  all 
the  consequences  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  reprobation,  as  before 
stated. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

An  Examination  of  certain  Passages  of  Scripture,  supposed  to 
Lout  the  Extent  of  Christ's  Redemption. 

Having  now  shown  that  those  passages  of  Holy  Writ,  in  which  the 
terms  election,  calling,  predestination,  and  foreknowledge 
occur,  do  not  warrant  those  inferences,  by  which  Calvuiists  attempt 
to  restrain  the  signification  of  those  declarations  with  respect  to  the 
extent  of  the  benefit  of  Christ's  death  which  are  expressed  in  terms  so 
universal  in  the  New  Testament,  we  may  conclude  our  investigation  of 
the  sense  of  Scripture  on  this  point  by  adverting  to  some  of  those  insu- 
lated texts  which  are  most  frequently  adduced  to  support  the  same  con- 
clusion. 

2 


362  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

John  vi,  37,  "  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me  ;  and 
him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out." 

It  is  inferred  from  this,  and  some  similar  passages  in  the  Gospels,  that 
by  a  transaction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  a  certain  number  of 
persons,  called  "  the  elect,"  were  given  to  Christ,  and  in  process  of  time 
"  drawn"  to  him  by  the  Father  ;  and  that  as  none  can  be  saved  but  those 
thus  "given"  to  him,  and  "  drawn"  by  the  Father,  the  doctrine  of  "dis- 
tinguishing grace"  is  established ;  and  the  rest  of  mankind,  not  having 
been  given  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  can  have  no  saving  participation 
in  the  benefits  of  a  redemption,  which  did  not  extend  to  them.  This 
fiction  has  often  been  defended  with  much  ingenuity ;  but  it  remains  a 
fiction  still  unsupported  by  any  good  interpretation  of  the  texts  which 
have  been  assumed  as  its  foundation. 

1.  The  first  objection  to  the  view  usually  taken  by  Calvinists  of  this 
text,  is,  that  in  the  case  of  the  perverse  Jews,  with  whom  the  discourse 
of  Christ  was  held,  it  places  the  reason  of  their  not  "  coming"  to  Christ, 
in  their  not  having  been  "  given"  to  him  by  the  Father ;  whereas  our 
Lord,  on  the  contrary,  places  it  in  themselves,  and  shows  that  he  consi- 
dered their  case  to  be  in  their  own  hands  by  his  inviting  them  to  come 
to  him,  and  reproving  them  because  they  would  not  come.  "  Ye  have 
not  his  word  (the  word  of  the  Father)  abiding  in  you  ;  for  whom  he  hath 
sent,  him  ye  beUeve  not,"  John  v,  38.  "  And  ye  will  not  come  to  me 
that  ye  may  have  life,"  verse  40.  "  How  can  ye  believe,  which  receive 
honour  one  of  another,"  verse  44.  "  For  had  ye  beheved  Moses,  ye 
would  have  believed  me,  for  he  wi'ote  of  me,"  verse  46.  Now  these 
statements  cannot  stand  together ;  for  if  the  true  reason  why  the  per- 
verse Jews  did  not  believe  in  our  Lord  was,  that  they  had  not  been  given 
to  him  of  the  Father,  then  it  lay  not  in  tJwmselves ;  but  if  the  reason  was 
that  "  his  word  did  not  abide  in  them ;"  that  they  "  would  not  come  to 
him  ;"  that  they  sought  worldly  "  honour  ;"  finally,  that  they  believed 
not  Moses's  writings ;  then  it  is  altogether  contradictory  to  these  decla- 
rations,  to  place  it  in  an  act  of  God ;  to  which  it  is  not  attributed  in  any 
part  of  the  discourse. 

2.  To  be  "given"  by  the  Father  to  Christ,  is  a  phrase  abundantly 
explained  in  the  context  which  this  class  of  interpreters  generally  over- 
look. 

It  had  a  special  apphcation  to  those  pious  Jews,  who  "  waited  for 
redemption  at  Jerusalem  :"  those  who  read  and  believed  the  writings  of 
Moses,  (a  general  term  it  would  seem  for  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,) 
and  who  were  thus  prepared,  by  more  spiritual  views  than  the  rest, 
though  they  were  not  unmixed  with  obscurity,  to  receive  Christ  as  the 
Messiah.  Of  this  description  were  Peter,  Andrew,  Philip,  Nathanael, 
Lazarus  and  his  sisters,  and  many  others.  Philip  says  to  Nathanael, 
"  We  have  found  him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  did 
2 


iSECOND.l  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  363 

write  ;"  and  Nathanael  was  manifestly  a  pious  Jew  ;  for  our  Lord  said 
of  him,  "  Behold  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  is  no  guile.^^  The  light 
which  such  honest  inquirers  into  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  obtained 
as  to  the  import  of  their  testimony  concerning  the  Messiah,  and  the  cha- 
racter and  claims  of  Jesus,  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  teaching  and 
revelation  of  "  the  father."  So,  after  Peter's  confession,  our  Lord 
exclaimed,  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar  Jonah,  for  Jlesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  unto  thee ;  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  This 
teaching,  and  its  influence  upon  the  mind  is,  in  John  vi,  44,  called  the 
"  drawing^''  of  the  Father,  "  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father 
draw  him  ;"  for,  that  "<o  draw,^""  and  "<o  teach,  ^  mean  the  same  thing, 
is  evident,  since  our  Lord  immediately  adds,  <'  It  is  written  in  the  pro- 
phets, and  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God ;"  and  then  subjoins  this  exe- 
getical  observation  : — "  Every  man,  therefore,  that  hath  heard,  and  hath 
learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  to  me."  Those  who  truly  "  believed" 
Moses's  words,  then,  were  under  the  Father's  illuminating  influence, 
-"  heard  and  learned  of  the  Father  ;"  were  *^  drawn"  of  the  Father  ;  and 
so,  by  the  Father,  were  "  given  to  Christ,"  as  his  disciples,  to  be  more 
fully  taught  the  mysteries  of  his  religion,  and  to  be  made  the  saving 
partakers  of  its  benefits  : — for  "  this  is  the  Father's  will  which  sent  me, 
that  of  all  which  he  hath  given  me  (thus  to  perfect  in  knowledge,  and  to 
exalt  in  holiness,)  I  should  lose  nothing ;  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at 
the  last  day."  Thus  we  have  exhibited  that  beautiful  process  in  the 
work  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  sincere  Jews,  which  took  place  in  their 
transit  from  one  dispensation  to  another,  from  Moses  to  Christ.  Taught 
of  the  Father ;  led  into  the  sincere  belief,  and  general  spiritual  under- 
standing of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  Messiah ;  when  Christ  appeared, 
they  were  "  drawn"  and  "  given"  to  him,  as  the  now  visible  and  accre- 
dited Head,  Teacher,  Lord,  and  Saviour  of  the  Church.  Afl  in  this 
view  is  natural,  expHcit,  and  supported  by  the  context ;  all  in  the  Cal- 
vinistic  interpretation  appears  forced,  obscure,  and  inapplicable  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  discourse.  For  to  what  end  of  edification  of  any 
kind,  were  the  Jews  told  that  none  but  a  certain  number,  elected  from 
eternity,  and  given  to  him  before  the  world  was  by  the  Father,  should 
come  to  him  ;  and  that  they  to  whom  he  was  then  speaking  were  not  of 
that  number  ?  But  the  coherence  of  the  discourse  is  manifest,  when,  in 
these  sermons  of  our  Lord,  they  were  told  that  their  not  coming  to  Christ 
was  the  proof  of  their  unbelief  in  Moses's  writings ;  that  they  were  not 
« taught  of  God  ;"  that  they  had  neither  "  heard  nor  learned  of  the  Fa- 
ther," whom  they  yet  professed  to  worship,  and  seek ;  and  that,  as  the 
hinderance  to  their  coming  to  Christ  was  in  the  state  of  their  hearts,  it 
was  remediable  by  a  diligent  and  honest  search  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and 
by  listening  to  the  teachings  of  God.  To  this  very  class  of  Jews  our 
Lord,  in  this  same  discourse,  says,  "  Search  the  Scriptures ;"  but  to 

2 


364  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

what  end  were  they  to  do  this,  if,  in  the  Calvinistic  sense,  they  were  not 
given  to  him  of  the  Father  ?  The  text  in  question,  then,  tlius  opened  by 
a  reference  to  the  whole  discourse,  is  of  obvious  meaning.  «  AH  that 
the  Father  giveth  me  after  this  preparing  teaching,  shall  or  mil  come 
to  me ;  (for  it  is  simply  the  future  tense  of  the  indicative  mood  which 
is  used ;  and  no  notion  of  irresistible  influence  is  conveyed ;)  and  him 
that  Cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out."  The  latter  clause  is 
added  to  show  the  perfect  harmony  of  design  between  Christ  and  the 
Father,  a  point  often  adverted  to  in  this  discourse  ;  for  "  I  came  down 
from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me." 
Whom,  therefore,  the  Father  so  gives,  I  receive :  I  enter  upon  my  as- 
signed office,  and  shall  be  faithful  to  it.  In  reference  also  to  the  work 
of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men  in  general,  as  well  as  to  the  honest  and 
inquiring  Jews  of  our  Lord's  day,  these  passages  have  a  clear  and  inte- 
resting application.  The  work  of  the  Father  is  carried  on  by  his  con- 
vincing and  teaching  Spirit ;  but  that  Spirit  "  testifies"  of  Christ,  "  leads" 
to  Christ,  and  "  gives"  to  Christ,  that  we  may  receive  the  full  benefit  of 
his  sacrifice  and  salvation,  and  be  placed  in  the  Church  of  which  he  is 
the  Head.  But  in  this  there  is  no  exclusion.  That  which  hinders 
others  from  coming  to  Christ,  is  that  which  hinders  them  from  being 
"  drawn"  of  the  Father ;  from  "  hearing  and  learning"  of  the  Father, 
in  his  holy  word,  and  by  his  Spirit ;  which  hinderance  is  the  moral  state 
of  the  heart,  not  any  exclusive  decree ;  not  the  want  of  teaching,  or  draw- 
ing ;  but,  as  it  is  compendiously  expressed  in  Scripture,  a  "  resisting 
ofthe  Holy  Ghost." 

Matt.  XX,  15,  16,  "  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  will  with  my 
own?  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  I  am  good?  So  the  last  shall  be  first, 
and  the  first  last ;  for  many  are  called  but  few  chosen." 

This  passage  has  been  often  urged  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  uncon- 
ditional election ;  and  the  argument  raised  upon  it  is,  that  God  has  a 
right  to  dispense  grace  and  glory  to  whom  he  will,  on  a  principle  of 
pure  sovereignty ;  and  to  leave  others  to  perish  in  their  sins.  Tliat  the 
passage  has  no  relation  to  this  doctrine,  needs  no  other  proof  than  that 
it  is  the  conclusion  ofthe  parable  ofthe  labourers  in  the  vineyard.  The 
householder  gives  to  them  that  "  wrought  but  one  hour"  an  equal  reward 
to  that  bestowed  upon  those  who  had  laboured  through  the  twelve.  The 
latter  received  the  full  price  of  the  day's  labour  agreed  upon ;  and  the 
former  were  made  subjects  of  a  special  and  sovereign  dispensation  of 
grace.  The  exercise  of  the  Divine  sovereignty,  in  bestowing  degrees 
of  grace,  or  reward,  is  the  subject  of  the  parable,  and  no  one  disputes 
it ;  but,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  interpretation,  no  grace  at  all,  no 
reward,  is  bestowed  upon  the  non-elect,  who  are,  moreover,  punished 
for  rejecting  a  grace- never  offered.  The  absurdity  of  such  a  use  ofthe 
parable  is  obvious.     It  relates  to  no  such  subject ;  for  its  moral  mani-. 


I 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  365 

festly  relates  to  the  reception  of  great  offenders,  and  especially  of  the 
Gentiles,  into  the  favour  of  Christ,  and  the  abundant  rewards  of  heaven. 

2  Timothy  ii,  1 9,  "  Nevertheless  the  foundation  of  God  standeth  sure, 
having  this  seal.  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his ;  and,  Let  every 
one  that  nameth  the  name  of  Christ  depart  from  iniquity." 

The  apostle,  in  this  chapter,  is  speaking  of  those  ancient  heretics  who 
affirmed  "  that  the  resurrection  is  passed  already,  and  overthrew  the 
faith  of  some."  What  then?  The  truth  itself  is  not  overthrown  ;  the 
foundation  of  God  standeth  sure,  having  this  seal,  or  inscription,  "  The 
Lord  knoweth,"  or  approveth,  or,  if  it  please  better,  distinguishes  and 
acknowledges,  "  them  that  are  his  ;"  and,  "  Let  every  one  that  nameth 
the  name  of  Christ  depart  from  iniquity ;"  which  is  as  much  as  to  say 
that  none  are  truly  "  the  Lord's"  who  do  not  depart  from  iniquity  ;  and 
that  those  whose  faith  is  "  overthrown"  by  the  influence  of  corrupt  prin- 
ciples  and  maimers,  are  no  longer  accounted  "  his :"  all  which  is  per- 
fectly congruous  with  the  opinions  of  those  who  hold  the  unrestricted 
extent  of  the  death  of  Christ.  Toward  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  this  text 
certainly  bears  no  friendly  aspect ;  for  surely  it  was  of  little  consequence 
to  any,  to  have  their  "  faith  overthrown,"  if  that  faith  never  was,  nor 
could  be,  connected  with  salvation. 

John  X,  26,  "  But  ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep,  as 
I  said  unto  you." 

The  argument  here  is,  that  the  cause  of  the  unbeUef  of  the  persons 
addressed  was,  that  they  were  not  of  the  number  given  to  Christ  by  the 
Father,  from  eternity,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  (5)  Let  it,  how- 
ever,  be  observed,  that  in  direct  opposition  to  this,  men  are  called  the 
sheep  of  Christ  by  our  Lord  himself,  not  with  reference  to  any  supposed 
transaction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  eternity,  which  is  never 
even  hinted  at,  but  because  of  their  qualities  and  acts.  "  My  sheep  hear 
my  voice,  and  I  know  them  ;  and  they  follow  me."  "A  stranger  will 
they  not  follow."  Why  then  did  not  the  Jews  beheve  ?  Because  they 
had  not  the  quahties  of  Christ's  sheep :  they  were  neither  discriminating 
as  to  the  voice  of  the  shepherd,  nor  obedient  to  it.  The  usual  Calvin, 
istic  interpretation  brings  in  our  Lord,  in  this  instance,  as  teaching  the 
Jews  that  the  reason  why  they  did  not  beheve  on  him,  was,  that  they 
could  not  believe  !  for,  as  Mr.  Scott  says  in  the  note  below,  "  not  being 
of  that  chosen  remnant,  they  were  left  to  the  pride  and  enmity  of  their 
carnal  hearts."  This  was  not  hkely  to  be  very  edifying  to  them.  But 
the  words  of  our  Lord  are  manifestly  words  of  reproof,  grounded  not 
upon  acts  of  God,  but  upon  acts  of  their  own ;  and  they  are  parallel  to 

(5)  "  The  tme  reason  why  they  did  not  believe  was,  the  want  of  that  simple, 
teachable,  and  inoffensive  temper,  which  characterized  his  sheep,  for  not  being 
of  that  CHOSEN  remnant,  they  were  left  to  the  pride  and  enmity  of  their  carnal 
hearts."  (Scott's  Com.) 

2 


366  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  passages — "  If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would  love  me,"  chap, 
viii,  42.  "  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice,"  xviii,  37, 
*'  How  can  ye  believe,  which  receive  honour  one  of  another,"  v,  44. 

John  xiii,  18,  "I  speak  not  of  you  all :  I  know  whom  I  have  chosen  : 
but  that  the  Scripture  may  be  fulfilled,  He  that  eateth  bread  with  me 
hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me." 

"  He  perfectly  knew,"  says  Mr.  Scott  on  the  passage,  "  what  persons 
he  had  chosen,  as  well  as  which  of  them  were  chosen  unto  salvation." 
This  is  surely  making  our  Lord  utter  a  very  unmeaning  truism ;  for  as 
he  chose  the  apostles,  so  he  must  have  "  knovm'^  that  he  chose  them. 
Dr.  Whitby's  interpretation  is,  therefore,  to  be  taken  in  preference.  "  I 
know  the  temper  and  disposition  of  those  whom  I  have  chosen,  and  what 
I  may  expect  from  every  one  of  them ;  for  which  cause  I  said,  '  Ye  are 
not  all  clean  ;'  but  God  in  his  wisdom  hath  permitted  this,  that  as  Ahitho- 
phel  betrayed  David,  though  he  was  his  familiar  friend,  so  Judas>  my 
famiUar  at  my  table,  might  betray  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  so  the  words 
recorded.  Psalm  xU,  9,  might  be  fulfilled  in  him  also  of  whom  King  David 
was  the  type."  (Notes  in  loc.)  Certainly  Judas  was  "  chosen,"  as  well 
as  the  rest.  "  Have  not  I  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ?" 
nor  have  we  any  reason  to  conclude  that  Christ  uses  the  term  chosen 
differently  in  the  two  passages.  When,  therefore,  our  Lord  says,  "  I 
know  whom  I  have  chosen,"  the  term  know  must  be  taken  in  the  sense 
of  discriminating  character. 

John  XV,  16,  "  Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  you,  and 
ordained  you  that  ye  should  go  and  bring  forth  fruit."  Mr.  Scott,  whom, 
as  being  a  modem  Calvinistic  commentator,  we  rather  choose  again  to 
quote,  interprets — "  chosen  them  unto  salvation."  In  its  proper  sense, 
we  make  no  objection  to  this  phrase  :  it  is  a  Scriptural  one ;  but  it  must 
be  taken  in  its  own  connection.  Here,  however,  either  the  term 
«  chosen"  is  to  be  understood  with  reference  to  the  apostolic  office,  which 
is  very  agreeable  to  the  context ;  or  if  it  relate  to  the  salvation  of  the 
disciples,  it  can  have  no  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  election.  For 
if  the  election  spoken  of  were  not  an  act  done  in  time,  it  would  have  been 
unnecessary  for  our  Lord,  to  say,  "  Ye  have  not  chosen  me  ,•"  because 
it  is  obvious  they  could  not  choose  him  before  they  came  into  being. 
Another  passage  also,  in  the  same  discourse,  farther  proves,  that  the  elec- 
tion mentioned  was  an  act  done  in  time.  "  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the 
world,^^  verse  19.  But  if  they  were  "chosen  out  of  the  world,"  they 
were  chosen  subsequently  to  their  being  "  in  the  world  ;"  and,  therefore, 
the  election  spoken  of  is  not  eternal.  The  last  observation  will  also 
deprive  these  interpreters  of  another  favourite  passage,  "  Those  that  thou 
gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition." 
The  "  giving"  here  mentioned,  was  no  more  an  act  of  God  in  eternity, 
as  they  pretend,  than  the  "  choosing"  to  which  we  have  already  referred  ; 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  367 

for  in  the  same  discourse  the  apostles  are  called  "  the  men  thou  gavest 
me  out  of  the  world,''^  and  were  therefore  given  to  Christ  in  time.  The 
exception  as  to  Judas,  also,  proves  that  this  ^^giving^^  expresses  actual 
discipleship.  Judas  had  been  "  given"  as  well  as  the  rest,  or  he  could 
not  have  been  mentioned  as  an  exception  ;  that  is,  he  had  been  once 
''found"  or  he  could  not  have  been  "  lost"  2  Tim.  i,  9,  "  Who  hath 
saved  us,  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works, 
but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in 
Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began." 

Mr.  Scott  here  contends  for  the  doctrine  of  the  personal  election  of 
the  persons  spoken  of,  "  from  the  beginning,  or  before  eternal  ages," 
which  is  the  most  hteral  translation ;  and  argues  that  this  cannot  be 
denied,  without  supposing  "  that  all  who  live  and  die  impenitent,  may  be 
said  to  be  saved,  and  called  with  a  holy  calling  ;  because  a  Saviour  was 
promised  from  the  beginning  of  the  world."  "  Indeed,"  he  adds,  "  the 
purpose  of  God  is  mentioned  as  the  reason  why  they,  rather  than  others, 
were  saved  and  called."  We  shall  see  the  passage  in  a  very  difierent 
light,  if  we  attend  to  the  following  considerations. 

"  The  purpose  and  grace,"  or  gracious  purpose,  "  which  was  given  us 
in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began,"  is  represented  as  having  been 
"  hid  in  past  ages ;"  for  the  apostle  immediately  adds,  "  but  is  now  made 
manifest  by  the  appearing  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  It  cannot  be 
the  personal  election  of  behevers,  therefore,  of  which  the  apostle  here 
speaks ;  because  it  was  saying  nothing  to  declare  that  the  Divine  pur- 
pose to  elect  them  was  not  manifest  in  former  ages ;  but  was  reserved 
to  the  appearing  of  Christ.  Whatever  degree  of  manifestation  God's 
purpose  of  personal  election  as  to  individuals  receives,  even  the  Cal- 
vinists  acknowledge  that  it  is  made  obvious  only  by  the  personal 
moral  changes  which  take  place  in  them  through  their  "  effectual  call- 
ing," faith,  and  regeneration.  Till  the  individual,  therefore,  comes  into 
being,  God's  purpose  to  elect  him  cannot  be  manifested ;  and  those 
who  were  so  elected,  but  did  not  live  till  Christ  appeared,  could  not 
have  their  election  manifested  before  he  appeared.  Again,  if  personal 
election  be  intended  in  the  text,  and  calling  and  conversion  are  the  proofs 
of  personal  election,  then  it  is  not  true  that  the  election  of  individuals  to 
eternal  life,  was  kept  hid  until  the  appearing  of  Christ ;  for  every  true 
conversion,  in  any  former  age,  was  as  much  a  manifestation  of  personal 
election,  that  is  of  the  pecuUar  favour  and  "  distinguishing  grace"  of 
God,  as  it  is  under  the  Gospel.  A  parallel  passage  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians,  chap,  iii,  4-6,  will,  however,  explain  that  before  us. 
"  Whereby,  when  ye  read,  ye  may  understand  my  knowledge  in  the 
mystery  of  Christ,  which  in  other  ages  was  not  made  known  unto  the 
sons  of  men,  as  it  is  now  revealed  unto  the  holy  apostles  and  prophets 
by  the  Spirit ;  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow  heirs,  and  of  the  same 


368  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

body,  and  partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by  the  Gospel :"  and  in 
verse  1 1  this  is  called,  in  exact  conformity  to  the  phrase  used  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  Timothy,  "  the  eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord."  The  "  purpose,"  or  "  gracious  purpose,"  mentioned  in  both 
places,  as  formerly  hidden,  but  "  now  manifested,"  was  therefore  the 
purpose  to  form  one  universal  Church  of  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  ; 
and  in  the  text  before  us,  the  apostle,  speaking  in  the  name  of  all  his  fellow 
Christians,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  says  that  they  were  saved  and  called 
according  to  that  previous  purpose  and  plan — "  who  hath  saved  us  and 
called  W5,"  &;c.  The  reason  why  the  Apostle  Paul  so  often  refers  to 
"  this  eternal  purpose"  of  God,  is  to  justify  and  confirm  his  own  ministry 
as  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles,  and  an  assertor  of  their  equal,  spiritual 
rights  with  the  Jews ;  and  that  this  subject  was  present  to  his  mind 
when  he  wrote  this  passage,  and  not  an  eternal,  personal  election,  is 
manifest  from  verse  11,  which  is  a  part  of  the  same  paragraph,  "  where- 
unto  I  am  appointed  a  preacher,  and  an  apostle,  and  a  teacher  of  the 
Gentiles:' 

But,  says  Mr.  Scott,  "  all  who  live  and  die  impenitent,  may  then  be 
said  to  be  *  saved,  and  called  with  a  holy  calling,'  because  a  Saviour  was 
promised  from  the  beginning  of  the  world."  But  we  do  not  say  that 
any  are  saved  only  because  a  Saviour  was  promised  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world ;  but  that  the  apostle  simply  affirms  that  the  salvation  of 
believers,  whether  Gentiles  or  Jews,  and  the  means  of  that  salvation, 
were  the  consequences  of  God's  previous  purpose,  before  the  world 
began.  All  who  are  actually  saved,  may  say,  "  We  are  saved,"  accord- 
ing to  this  purpose  ;  but  if  their  actual  salvation  shut  out  the  salvation 
of  all  others,  then  no  more  have  been  saved  than  those  included  by  the 
apostle  in  the  pronoun  "  W5,"  which  would  prove  too  much.  But  Mr. 
Scott  tells  us  that  "  '  the  pui'pose  of  God'  is  mentioned  as  the  reason  why 
they,  rather  than  others,  were  thus  saved  and  called."  It  is  mentioned 
with  no  such  view.  The  purpose  of  God  is  introduced  by  the  apostle 
as  his  authority  for  making  to  "  the  Gentiles"  the  offer  of  salvation ;  and 
as  a  motive  to  induce  Timothy  to  prosecute  the  same  glorious  work,  after 
his  decease.     This  is  obviously  the  scope  of  the  whole  chapter. 

Acts  xiii,  48,  "  And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  hfe  believed." 
Mr.  Scott  is  somewhat  less  confident  than  some  others  as  to  the  support 
which  the  Calvinistic  system  is  thought  to  derive  from  the  word  rendered 
ordained.  He,  however,  attempts  to  leave  the  impression  upon  the  minds 
of  his  readers,  that  it  means,  "  appointed  to  eternal  life." 

We  may,  however,  observe, — 

1.   That  the  persons  here  spoken  of  were  the  Gentiles  to  whom  the 

apostles  preached  the  Gospel,  upon  the  Jews  of  the  same  place  "  putting 

it  from  them,"  and  "  judging"  or  proving  "  themselves  unworthy  of  eternal 

life."     But  if  the  only  reason  why  the  Gentiles  believed  was,  that  they 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  369 

were  "  ordained,"  in  the  sense  of  personal  predestination,  "  to  eternal 
life  ;"  then  the  reason  why  the  Jews  believed  not  was  the  want  of  such 
a  predestinating  act  of  God,  and  not  as  it  is  affirmed,  an  act  of  their  own 
— the  PUTTirsG  IT  AWAY  from  them. 

2.  This  interpretation  supposes  that  all  the  elect  Gentiles  at  Antioch 
believed  at  that  time  ;  and  that  no  more,  at  least  of  full  age,  remained  td 
beheve.  This  is  rather  difficult  to  admit ;  and  therefore  Mr.  Scott  says^ 
"  though  it  is  probable  that  all  who  were  thus  affected  at  first,  did  not  at 
that  time  believe  unto  salvation ;  yet  many  did."  But  this  is  not  accord- 
ing to  the  text,  which  says  expressly,  "  as  many  as  were  ordained  toi 
eternal  life  believed  :"  so  that  such  commentators  must  take  this  incon- 
venient circumstance  along  with  their  interpretation,  that  all  the  elect 
at  Antioch  were,  at  that  moment,  brought  into  Christ's  Church. 

3.  Even  some  Calvinists,  not  thinking  that  it  is  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  and  evangelists  to  lift  up  the  veil  of  the  decrees  so  high  as  this 
interpretation  supposes,  choose  to  render  the  words — "  as  many  as  were 
determined,''^  or  "  ordered'^  for  eternal  life. 

4.  But  we  may  finally  observe,  that,  in  no  place  in  the  New  Testament, 
in  which  the  same  word  occurs,  is  it  ever  employed  to  convey  the  meaning 
of  destiny,  or  predestination  :  a  consideration  which  is  fatal  to  the  argu- 
ment which  has  been  drawn  from  it.  The  following  are  the  only  instances 
of  its  occurrence  :  Matt,  xxviii,  16,  "  Then  the  eleven  disciples  went  away 
into  Gahlee,  into  a  mountain  where  Jesus  had  appointed  them."  Here 
the  word  means  commanded,  or  at  most  agreed  upon  beforehand,  and 
certainly  conveys  no  idea  of  destiny.  Luke  vii,  8,  "  For  I  also  am  a 
man  set  under  authority."  Here  the  word  means  "  placed,  or  disposed." 
Acts  XV,  2,  "  They  determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  should  go  up  to 
Jerusalem."  Here  it  signifies  mutual  agreement  and  decision.  Acts 
xxii,  10,  "Arise,  and  go  into  Damascus;  and  there  it  shall  be  told  thee 
of  all  things  which  are  appointed  for  thee  to  do."  Here  it  means  com- 
mitted  to,  or  appointed  in  the  way  of  injunction ;  but  no  idea  of  destiny 
is  conveyed.  Acts  xxviii,  23,  "  And  when  they  had  appointed  him  a  day," 
when  they  had  fixed  upon  a  day  by  mutual  agreement ;  for  St.  Paul 
was  not  under  the  command  or  control  of  the  visiters  who  came  to  him  to 
hear  his  doctrine.  Rom.  xiii,  1,  "The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of 
God  :"  clearly  signifying  constituted  and  ordered.  1  Cor.  xvi,  15,  "  They 
have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints  :"  here  it  can  mean 
nothing  else  than  applied,  devoted  themselves  to.  Thus  the  word  never 
takes  the  sense  of  predestination  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  when  St.  Luke 
wishes  to  convey  that  notion,  he  combines  it  with  a  preposition,  and  uses 
a  compound  verb—"  and  hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed,^* 
This  was  pre-ordination,  and  he  therefore  so  terms  it ;  but  in  the  text  in 
question  he  speaks  not  of  preordination,  but  of  ordination  simply.  The 
word  employed  signifies,  "  to  place,  order,  appoint,  dispose,  determine," 

Vol.  n.  24 


370  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  is  very  variously  applied.  The  prevalent  idea  is  that  of  settling,  or 
dering,  and  resolving  ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  text  is,  that  as  many  as 
were  fixed  and  resolved  upon  eternal  life,  as  many  as  were  careful  about, 
and  determined  on  salvation,  believed.  For  that  the  historian  is  speak- 
ing of  the  candid  and  serious  part  of  the  hearers  of  the  apostles,  in 
opposition  to  the  blaspheming  Jews ;  that  is,  of  those  Gentiles  "  who, 
when  they  heard  this  were  glad,  and  glorified  the  word  of  the  Lord," 
is  evident  from  the  context.  The  persons  who  then  believed,  appear  to 
have  been  under  a  previous  preparation  for  receiving  the  Gospel ;  and 
were  probably  religious  proselytes  associating  with  the  Jews. 

Luke  X,  20,  "  But  rather  rejoice,  because  your  names  are  written  in 
heaven."  The  inference  from  this  text  is,  that  there  is  a  register  of  all 
the  elect  in  the  "  Book  of  Life,"  and  that  their  number,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  synod  of  Dort,  is  fixed  and  determinate.  Our  Cal- 
vinistic  friends  forget,  however,  that  names  may  be  "  blotted  out  of  the 
Book  of  Life  :"  and  so  the  theory  falls. — "  And  if  any  man  shall  take 
away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away 
his  part  out  of  the  Book  of  Life." 

Prov.  xvi,  4,  "  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself;  yea,  even 
the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil."  If  there  be  any  relevance  in  this  pas- 
sage to  the  Calvinistic  theory,  it  must  be  taken  in  the  supralapsarian 
sense,  that  the  final  cause  of  the  creation  of  the  wicked  is  their  eternal 
punishment.  It  follows  from  this,  that  sin  is  not  the  cause  of  punish- 
ment ;  but  that  this  flows  from  the  mere  will  of  God ;  which  is  a  suffi- 
cient refutation.  The  persons  spoken  of  are  "  wicked."  Either  they 
were  made  wicked  by  themselves,  or  by  God.  If  not  by  God,  then  to 
make  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil,  can  only  mean  that  he  renders 
them  who  have  made  themselves  wicked,  and  remain  incorrigibly  so, 
the  instruments  of  glorifying  his  justice,  "  in  the  day  of  evil,"  that  is,  in 
the  day  of  punishment.  The  Hebrew  phrase,  rendered  literally,  is, 
"  the  Lord  doth  work  all  things  for  himself;"  which  applies  as  well  to 
acts  of  government  as  to  acts  of  creation.  Thus,  then,  we  are  taught  by 
the  passage,  not  that  God  created  the  wicked  to  punish  them,  but  so 
governs,  controls,  and  subjects  all  things  to  himself;  and  so  orders  them 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose,  that  the  wicked  shall  not  escape 
his  just  displeasure  ;  since  upon  such  men  the  day  of  evil  will  ultimately 
come.  It  is  therefore  added  in  the  next  verse,  "  Though  hand  join  in 
hand,  he  shall  not  be  unpunished."  (6) 

John  xii,  37-40,  "  But  though  he  had  done  so  many  miracles  before 
them,  yet  they  believed  not  on  him  ;  that  the  saying  of  Esaias  the  pro- 

(6)  Holden  translates  the  verse,  "  Jehovah  hath  made  all  things  for  himself; 
yea,  even  the  wicked  he  daily  sustains ;"  and  observes,  "  should  the  received 
translation  be  deemed  correct,  'the  day  of  evil'  would  be  considered  by  a  Jew 
of  the  age  of  Solomon,  to  mean,  the  day  of  trouble  and  affliction." 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  371 

phet  might  be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  Lord,  who  hath  beUeved  our 
report  ?  and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed  ?  There- 
fore  they  could  not  believe,  because  that  Esaias  said  again,  He  hath 
blinded  their  eyes,  and  hardened  their  heart ;  that  they  should  not  see' 
with  their  eyes,  nor  understand  with  their  heart,  and  be  converted,  and 
I  should  heal  them." 

Mr.  Scott's  interpretation  is,  in  its  first  aspect,  more  moderate  than 
that  of  many  divines  of  the  same  school.  It  is — "  they  had  long  shut 
their  own  eyes,  and  hardened  their  own  hearts ;  and  so  God  would  give 
up  many  of  them  to  such  judicial  blindness,  as  rendered  their  conver- 
sion and  salvation  impossible.  The  prophecy  was  not  the  motive  or 
cause  of  their  wickedness  ;  but  it  was  the  declaration  of  God's  purpose, 
which  could  not  be  defeated :  therefore  while  this  prophecy  stood  in 
Scripture  against  them,  and  others  of  like  character,  who  hated  the 
truth  from  the  love  of  sin,  the  event  became  certain ;  in  which  sense  it 
is  said,  that  they  could  not  believe." 

That,  in  some  special  and  aggravated  cases,  and  especially  in  that 
which  consisted  in  ascribing  the  miracles  of  Christ  to  Satan,  and  thus 
blaspheming  the  Holy  Ghost ;  (cases,  however,  which  probably  affected 
but  a  few  individuals,  and  those  principally  the  chief  Pharisees  and 
rabbins  of  our  Lord's  time ;)  there  was  such  a  judicial  derehction  a& 
Mr.  Scott  speaks  of,  is  allowed  ;  but  that  it  extended  to  the  body  of  the 
Jews,  who  at  that  time  did  not  beUeve  in  the  mission  and  miracles  of 
Christ,  may  be  denied.  The  contrary  must  appear  from  the  earnest 
manner  in  which  their  salvation  was  sought  by  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
subsequently  to  this  declaration ;  and  also  from  the  fact  of  great  num- 
bers of  this  same  people  being  afterward  brought  to  acknowledge  and 
embrace  Christ  and  his  rehgion.  This  is  our  objection  to  the  former 
part  of  this  interpretation.  Not  every  one  who  is  lost  finally,  is  given 
up  previously  to  judicial  blindness.  To  be  thus  abandoned  before  death 
is  a  special  procedure,  which  our  Lord  himself  confines  to  the  special 
case  of  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  To  the  latter  part  of  the 
comment,  the  objection  is  still  stronger.  Mr.  Scott  acknowledges  the 
wicked  and  wilful  blindness  of  these  Jews  to  be  the  cause  of  the  judicial 
dereliction  supposed.  From  this  it  wouW  naturally  follow,  that  this 
wilful  blinding  and  hardening  of  their  hearts,  was  the  true  reason  why 
they  "  could  not  believe,"  as  provoking  God  to  take  away  his  Holy 
Spirit  from  them.  But  Mr.  Scott  cannot  stop  here.  He  will  have 
another  cause  for  their  incapacity  to  believe  :  Hot,  indeed,  the  prophecy 
quoted  from  Isaiah  by  the  evangelist ;  but  "  God's  purpose,"  of  which 
that  prediction,  he  says,  was  the  "  declaration."  It  follows,  then,  that 
« they  could  not  beheve,"  because  it  was  "  God's  purpose  which  coidd 
not  be  defeated"     Agreeably  to  this  Mr.  Scott  understands  the  pre- 

2 


372  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

diction  as  asserting,  that  the  agent  in  Winding  the  eyes  of  the  people 
reproved,  that  is,  the  obstinate  Jews,  was  God  himself. 

Let  us  now,  therefore,  more  particularly  examine  this  passage,  and 
we  shall  find, 

1.  That  it  affirms,  not  that  their  eyes  should  be  blinded,  or  their  ears 
closed,  by  a  Divine  agency,  as  assumed  by  Mr.  Scott  and  other  Calvin- 
ists.  This  notion  is  not  found  in  Isaiah  vi,  from  which  the  quotation  is 
made.  There  the  agent  is  represented  to  be  the  prophet  himself. 
"Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and 
shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see  with  their  eyes,"  &c.  Now  as  the  pro- 
phet could  exert  no  secret  direct  influence  over  the  minds  of  the  disobe- 
dient Jews,  he  must  have  fulfilled  this  commission,  if  it  be  taken  literally, 
by  preaching  to  them  a  fallacious  and  obdurating  doctrine,  hke  that  of 
the  false  prophets ;  but  if,  as  we  know,  he  preached  no  such  doctrine, 
then  are  the  words  to  be  understood  according  to  the  genius  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  which  often  represents  him  as  an  agent,  who  is  the 
occasion,  however  innocent  and  undesigned,  of  any  thing  being  done  by 
another.  Thus  the  prophet,  in  consequence  of  the  unbehef  of  the  Jews 
of  his  day  in  those  promises  of  Messiah  he  was  appointed  to  dehver, 
and  which  led  him  to  complain,  "  Who  hath  believed  our  report !"  be- 
came an  occasion  to  the  Jews  of  "  making  their  own  hearts  fat,  and  their 
ears  heavy,  and  of  shutting  their  eyes"  against  his  testimony.  The 
true  agents  were,  however,  the  Jews  themselves ;  and  by  all  who  knew 
the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  language  they  would  be  understood  as  so 
charged  by  the  prophet.  Thus  the  Septuagint,  the  Arabic,  and  the 
Syriac  versions  all  agree  in  rendering  the  text,  so  that  the  people  them- 
selves, to  whom  the  prophet  wrote,  are  made  the  agents  of  doing  that 
which,  in  the  style  of  the  Hebrews,  is  ascribed  to  the  prophet  himself. 
So  also,  it  is  manifest,  that  St.  Paul,  who  quotes  the  same  scripture, 
Acts  xxviii,  25-27,  understood  the  prophet ;  "  Well  spake  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fathers,  saying.  Go  unto  this 
people,  and  say,  Hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  not  understand  ;  and  seeing 
ye  shall  see,  and  not  perceive :  for  the  heart  of  this  people  is  waxed 
gross,  and  their  ears  are  dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  have  they 
closed ;  lest  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears, 
and  understand  with  their  heart,  and  should  be  converted,  and  I  should 
heal  them."  Nor  in  the  passage  as  it  is  given  by  St.  John,  is  the 
blinding  of  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  attributed  to  God.  It  stands,  it  is 
true,  in  our  version,  "  He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,"  &;c.  But  the  Greek 
verbs  have  no  nominative  case  expressed,  and  it  is  left  to  be  suppUed 
by  the  reader.  Nor  does  the  context  mention  the  agent ;  and  farther, 
if  we  supply  the  pronoun  he,  we  cannot  refer  it  to  God,  since  the  pas- 
sage closes  with  a  change  of  person,  "  and  /  should  heal  them."  The 
agent  blinding  and"  hardening,  and  the  agent  attempting  to  "  heal,"  can- 


SECOND.l  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  373 

not,  therefore,  be  the  same,  because  they  are  opposed  to  each  other,  not 
only  grammatically,  but  in  design  and  operation.  That  agent,  then, 
may  be  "  the  god  of  this  world,"  to  whom  the  work  of  blinding  them 
that  beheve  not,  is  expressly  attributed  by  the  Apostle  Paul;  or  St. 
John,  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  style,  might  refer  it  to  the  prophet,  who, 
consequentially,  and  through  the  wilful  perverseness  of  the  Jews,  was 
the  occasion  of  their  making  their  own  "  hearts  gross,  and  closing  their 
ears ;"  or,  finally,  the  personal  verb  may  be  used  impersonally,  and  the 
active  form  for  the  passive,  of  which  critics  furnish  parallel  instances.  (7) 
But  in  all  these  views  the  true  responsible  agent  and  criminal  doer  is 
"  THIS  PEorLE," — this  perverse  and  obstinate  people  themselves ;  a 
point  to  which  every  part  of  their  Scriptures  gives  abundant  testimony. 

2.  It  may  be  denied  that  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  here  quoted  is,  as 
Mr.  Scott  represents  it,  "  a  declaration  of  God's  purpose,  which  could 
not  be  defeated."  A  simple  prophecy  is  not  a  declaration  of  purpose 
at  all ;  but  the  declaration  of  a  future  event.  If  a  purpose  of  God,  to 
be  hereafter  accomplished,  be  declared,  this  declaration  becomes  more 
than  a  simple  prophecy :  it  connects  the  act  with  an  agent ;  and  in  the 
case  before  us,  that  agent  is  assumed  to  be  God.  But  we  have  shown, 
that  the  agent  in  Winding  the  eyes,  and  closing  the  ears  of  these  perverse 
Jews,  is  nowhere  said  to  be  God  ;  and  therefore  the  prophecy  is  not  a 
declaration  of  his  purpose.  Again,  if  it  were  a  declaration  of  God's 
purpose,  it  would  not  follow  that  it  could  not  be  defeated :  for  prophetic 
threatenings  are  not  absolute ;  but  imply  conditions.  This  is  so  far 
from  being  a  mere  assumption,  that  it  is  established  by  the  authority  of 
Almighty  God  himself,  who  declares,  Jer.  xviii,  7,  8,  "  At  what  instant 
I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  to  pluck  up,  and  to  pull  down,  and  to 
destroy  it ;  if  that  nation,  against  whom  I  have  pronounced,  turn  from 
their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them." 
Here  we  have  a  prophetic  commination  vttered ;  "at  what  instant  I  speak" 
— "  that  nation  against  whom  I  have  pronounced."  We  have  also  the 
purpose  in  the  mind  of  God — "  the  evil  that  I  thougJU ;"  and  yet  this 
prediction  might  fail,  and  this  purpose  be  defeated.  So  in  the  case  of 
repentant  Nineveh,  the  predicted  destruction  failed,  and  the  wrathful 
purpose  was  defeated,  without  any  impeachment  of  the  Divine  attributes : 
on  the  contrary,  they  were  illustrated  by  this  manifestation  of  the 
mingled  justice  and  grace  of  his  administration.  Mr.  Scott,  like  many 
others,  argues  as  though  the  prediction  of  an  event  gave  certainty  to  it. 
But  the  certainty  or  uncertainty  of  events  is  not  created  by  prophecy. 
Prophecy  results  from  prescience  ;  and  prescience  has  respect  to  what 
will  be,  but  not  necessarily  to  what  muM  be.  Of  this,  however,  more 
in  its  proper  place. 

(7)  See  Whitby's  Paraphrase  and  Annot.  and  his  Discourse  on  the  Five  Points, 
chap.  i. 

2 


374  THEOLOGICAL  IIVSTITUTES,  [PART 

3.  If  tliis  prophecy  could  be  made  to  bear  all  that  the  Calvinists  im- 
pose upon  it,  it  would  not  serve  their  purpose.  It  would,  even  then, 
afford  no  proof  of  ^ewemZ  election  and  reprobation,  since  it  has  an  exclu- 
sive application  to  the  unbeUeving  part  of  the  Jewish  people  only ;  and 
is  never  adduced,  either  by  St.  John  or  by  St.  Paul,  as  the  ground  of 
any  general  doctrine  whatever. 

Jude  4,  ^'For  there  are  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  who  were 
before  of  old  ordtiined  to  this  condemnation,  ungodly  men,"  &;c. 

The  word  which  is  here  rendered  ordained,  is  literaWy  forevritten ;  and 
the  word  rendered  condemnation,  signifies  legal  punishnenty  or  judgment. 
The  passage  means,  therefore,  either  that  the  class  of  men  spoken  of 
had  been  foretold  in  the  Scriptures,  or  that  their  punishment  had  been 
there  formerly  typified,  in  those  examples  of  ancient  times,  of  which 
several  are  cited  in  the  following  verses ;  as  Cain,  Balaam,  Korah,  and 
the  cities  of  the  plain.  Mr.  Scott,  therefore,  very  well  interprets  the 
text,  when  he  says,  "  the  Lord  had  foreseen  them,  for  they  were  of  old, 
registered  to  this  condemnation :  many  predictions  had,  from  the  begin- 
ning, been  delivered  to  this  effect."  But  when  he  adds,  "  Nay,  these 
predictions  had  been  extracts^  as  it  were,  from  the  registers  of  Heaven, 
even  the  secret  and  eternal  decrees  of  God,  in  which  he  had  determined 
to  leave  them  to  their  pride  and  lusts,  till  they  merited  and  received  this 
condemnation,"  we  may  well  ask  for  the  proof.  All  this  is  manifestly 
gratuitous  ;  brought  to  the  text,  and  not  deduced  from  it ;  and  is,  there- 
fore, very  unworthy  of  a  commentator.  The  "  extracts"  from  the 
register  of  God's  decrees,  as  they  are  found  in  the  Scriptures,  contain  no 
such  sentiment  as  that  these  abusers  of  the  grace  of  God  only  did  that 
which  they  could  not  but  do,  in  consequence  of  having  been  '^  left  to 
their  pride  and  lusts,"  and  excluded  before  they  were  born  from  the 
mercies  of  Christ.  If  this  sentiment  then  is  not  in  the  "  extracts,"  it  is 
not  in  the  original  register ;  or  else  something  is  there  which  God,  in  his 
own  revealed  word,  has  not  extracted,  and  respecting  which  the  com- 
mentator must  either  have  had  some  independent  revelation,  or  have 
been  guilty  of  speaking  very  rashly.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  2  Peter  ii,  1-3,  where  the  same  class  of  persons  is  certainly 
spoken  of,  so  far  are  they  from  being  represented  as  excluded  from  the 
benefits  of  Christ's  redemption,  that  they  are  charged  with  a  specific 
crime,  which  necessarily  implies  their  participation  in  it,  with  the  crime 
of  "  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them." 

1  Cor.  iv,  7,  *'  For  who  maketh  thee  to  differ  from  another  ?" 

The  context  shows  that  the  apostle  was  here  endeavouring  to  repress 
that  ostentation  which  had  arisen  among  many  persons  in  the  Church 
of  Corinth,  on  account  of  their  spiritual  gifts  and  endowments.  This 
he  does  by  referring  those  gifts  to  God,  as  the  sole  giver, — "  for  who 
maketh  thee  to  differ  ?"  or  who  confers  superiority  upon  thee  ?  as  the 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  375 

sense  obviously  is  ;  "  and  what  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  ?" 
Mr.  Scott  aclmowledges  that  "  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  more  imme- 
diately of  natural  abilities,  and  spiritual  gifts ;  and  not  of  special  and 
efficacious  grace."  If  so,  then  the  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  this 
controversy.  The  argument  he  however  affirms,  concludes  equally  in 
one  case,  as  in  the  other ;  and  in  his  sermon  on  election  he  thus  applies 
it :  "  Let  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  be  fairly  proposed,  with  solemn 
warnings  and  pressing  invitations,  to  two  men  of  exactly  the  same  cha- 
racter and  disposition :  if  they  are  left  to  themselves  in  entirely  similar 
circumstances,  the  effect  must  be  precisely  the  same.  But,  behold, 
while  one  proudly  scorns  and  resents  the  gracious  offer,  the  other 
trembles,  weeps,  prays,  repents,  believes !  Who  maketh  this  man  to 
differ  from  the  other  ?  or  what  hath  he  that  he  hath  not  received  ?  The 
Scriptural  answer  to  this  question,  when  properly  understood,  decides 
the  whole  controversy."  (8) 

As  this  is  a  favourite  argument,  and  a  popular  dilemma  in  the  hands 
of  the  Calvinists,  and  so  much  is  supposed  to  depend  upon  its  solution, 
we  may  somewhat  particularly  examine  it. 

Instead  of  supposing  the  case  of  two  men  "  of  exactly  the  same  cha- 
racter and  disposition,"  why  not  suppose  the  same  man  in  two  moral 
states  ?  for  one  man  who  "  proudly  scorns  the  Gospel"  does  not  more 
differ  from  another  who  penitently  receives  it,  than  the  same  man  who 
has  once  scoffingly  rejected,  and  afterward  meekly  submitted  to  it, 
differs  from  himself;  as  for  instance,  Saul  the  Pharisee  from  Paul  the 
apostle.  Now,  to  account  for  the  case  of  two  men,  one  receiving  the 
Gospel,  and  the  other  rejecting  it,  the  theory  of  election  is  brought  in ; 
but  in  the  case  of  the  one  man  in  two  different  states,  this  theory  cannot 
be  resorted  to.  The  man  was  elect  from  eternity ;  he  is  no  outcast 
from  the  mercy  of  his  God,  and  the  redemption  of  his  Saviour,  and  yet, 
in  one  period  of  his  hfe,  he  proudly  scorns  the  offered  mercy  of  Christ, 
at  another  he  accepts  it.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  doctrine  of  election, 
simply  considered  in  itself,  will  not  solve  the  latter  case ;  and  by  conse- 
quence it  will  not  solve  the  former :  for  the  mere  fact,  that  one  man 
rejects  the  Gospel  while  another  receives  it,  is  no  more  a  proof  of  the 
non-election  of  the  non- recipient,  than  the  fact  of  a  man  now  rejecting 
it,  who  shall  afterward  receive  it,  is  a  proof  of  his  non-election.  The 
solution,  then,  must  be  sought  for  in  some  communication  of  the  grace 
of  God,  in  some  inward  operation  upon  the  heart,  which  is  supposed  to 
be  a  consequence  of  election ;  but  this  leads  to  another  and  distinct 
question.  This  question  is  not,  however,  the  vincibility  or  invincibihty 
of  the  grace  of  God,  at  least  not  in  the  first  instance.  It  is,  in  truth, 
whether  there  is  any  operation  of  the  grace  of  God  in  man  at  all  tend- 
ing to  salvation,  in  cases  where  we  see  the  Gospel  rejected.    Is  the  man 

(8)  Calvin  puts  the  matter  in  much  the  same  way.    Inst.  lib.  iii,  c.  24. 

2    ' 


376  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

who  rejects  perseveringly,  and  he  who  rejects  but  for  a  time,  perhaps  a 
long  period  of  his  Ufe,  left  without  any  good  motions  or  assisting  influ- 
ence  from  the  grace  of  God,  or  not  ?  This  question  seems  to  admit  of 
but  one  of  three  answers.  Either  he  has  no  gracious  assistance  at  all, 
to  dispose  him  to  receive  the  Gospel ;  or  he  has  a  sufficient  influence 
of  grace  so  to  dispose  him ;  or  that  gracious  influence  is  dispensed  in  an 
insuflicient  measure.  If  the  first  answer  be  given,  then  not  only  are  the 
non-elect  left  without  any  visitations  of  grace  throughout  life ;  but  the  elect 
also  are  left  without  them,  until  the  moment  of  their  effectual  calling. 
If  the  second  be  offered  as  the  answer,  then  both  in  the  case  of  the  non- 
elect  man  who  finally  rejects  Christ,  and  that  of  the  elect  man,  who 
rejects  him  for  a  great  part  of  his  hfe,  the  saving  grace  of  God  must  be 
allowed  so  to  work  as  to  be  capable  of  counteraction,  and  effectual 
resistance.  If  this  be  denied,  then  the  third  answer  must  be  adoptedj 
and  the  grace  of  God  must  be  allowed  so  to  influence  as  to  be  design- 
edly insufficient  for  the  ends  for  which  it  is  given ;  that  is,  it  is  given 
for  no  saving  end  at  all,  either  as  to  the  non-elect,  or  as  to  the  elect  all 
the  time  they  remain  in  a  state  of  actual  alienation  from  Christ.  For 
if  an  insufficient  degree  of  grace  is  bestowed,  when  a  sufficient  degree 
might  have  been  imparted,  then  there  must  have  been  a  reason  for  restrain- 
ing the  degree  of  grace  to  an  insufficient  measure ;  which  reason  could 
only  be,  that  it  might  be  insufficient,  and  therefore  not  saving.  Now, 
two  of  the  three  of  these  positions  are  manifestly  contrary  to  the  word 
of  God.  To  say  that  no  gracious  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  operates 
upon  the  unconverted,  is  to  take  away  their  guilt ;  since  they  cannot  be 
guilty  of  rejecting  the  Gospel  if  they  have  no  power  to  embrace  it, 
either  from  themselves,  or  by  impartation,  while  yet  the  Scripture 
represents  this  as  the  highest  guilt  of  men.  All  the  exhortations, 
and  reproofs,  and  invitations  of  Scripture,  are,  also,  by  this  doctrine, 
turned  into  mockery  and  delusion ;  and,  finally,  there  can  be  no  such 
thing  in  this  case,  as  "  resisting  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  as  « grieving  and 
quenching  the  Spirit ;"  as  "  doing  despite  to  the  Spirit  of  grace,"  either 
in  the  case  of  the  non-elect,  who  are  never  converted,  or  of  the  elect, 
before  conversion :  so  that  the  latter  have  never  been  guilty  of  stubborn- 
ness, and  obstinacy,  and  rebellion,  and  resistance  of  grace  ;  though  these 
are,  by  them,  afterward,  always  acknowledged  among  their  sins.  Nor 
did  they  ever  feel  any  good  motion,  or  drawing  from  the  Spirit  of  God, 
before  what  they  term  their  effectual  calling ;  though,  it  is  presumed, 
that  few,  if  any  of  them,  will  deny  this  in  fact. 

If  the  doctrine,  that  no  grace  is  imparted  before  conversion,  is  then 
contradicted  both  by  Scripture  and  experience,  how  will  the  case  stand, 
as  to  the  intentional  restriction  of  that  grace  to  a  degree  which  is  insuf- 
ficient to  dispose  the  subject  to  the  acceptance  of  the  Gospel  ?  If  this 
view  be  held,  it  must  be  maintained  equally  as  to  the  elect  before  their 


I 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  377 

conversion,  and  as  to  the  non-elect.  In  that  case,  then,  we  have  equal 
difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  guilt  of  man,  as  when  it  is  supposed 
that  no  grace  at  all  is  imparted ;  and  for  the  reproofs,  calls,  and  invita- 
tions, and  threatenings  of  the  word  of  God.  For  where  hes  the  differ, 
ence  between  the  absolute  non-impartation  of  grace,  and  grace  so 
imparted  as  to  be  designedly  insufficient  for  salvation  ?  Plainly  there  is 
none,  except  that  we  can  see  no  end  at  all  for  giving  insufficient  grace ; 
a  circumstance  which  would  only  serve  to  render  still  more  perplexing 
the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Divine  administration.  It  has  no  end 
of  mercy,  suid  none  of  justice  ;  nor,  as  far  as  can  be  perceived,  of  wis- 
dom. Not  of  mercy,  for  it  effects  nothing  merciful,  and  designs  not  to 
effect  it ;  not  of  justice,  for  it  places  no  man  under  equitable  responsi- 
bility ;  not  of  wisdom,  for  it  has  no  assignable  end.  The  Scripture 
treats  all  men  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached  as  endowed  with  power, 
not  indeed  from  themselves,  but  from  the  grace  of  God,  to  "  turn  at  his 
reproof;"  to  come  at  his  "  call ;"  to  embrace  his  "  grace ;"  but  they 
have  no  capacity  for  any  of  these  acts,  if  either  of  these  opinions  be 
true  :  and  thus  the  word  of  God  is  contradicted.  So  also  is  experience, 
in  both  cases ;  for  there  could  be  no  sense  of  guilt  for  having  rejeofed 
Christ,  and  grieved  the  Holy  Spirit,  either  in  the  non-elect  never  ^^^z- 
verted,  or  in  the  elect  before  conversion,  if  either  they  had  no  visitatioijs 
of  grace  at  all ;  or  if  these  were  designedly  granted  in  an  insufficient 
degree. 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  impartation  of  grace  to  the 
unconverted,  in  a  sufficient  degree  to  enable  them  to  embrace  the  Gos- 
pel, must  be  admitted ;  and  with  this  doctrine  comes  in  that  of  a  power 
in  man  to  use,  or  to  spurn  this  heavenly  gift  and  gracious  assistance : 
in  other  words,  a  power  of  willing  to  come  to  Christ,  even  when  men 
do  not  come ;  a  power  of  considering  their  ways,  and  turning  to  the 
Lord,  when  they  do  not  consider  them,  and  turn  to  him ;  a  power  of 
praying,  when  they  do  not  pray ;  and  a  power  of  believing,  when  they 
do  not  believe :  powers  all  of  grace  ;  all  the  results  of  the  work  of.  the 
Spirit  in  the  heart ;  but  powers  to  be  exerted  by  man,  since  it  is  man, 
and  not  God,  who  wdlls,  and  turns,  and  prays,  and  believes,  while  the 
influence  under  which  this  is  done  is  from  the  grace  of  God  alone. 
This  is  the  doctrine  which  is  clearly  contained  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul, 
"Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for  it  is  God 
that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do,  of  his  own  good  pleasure  ;" 
where,  not  only  the  operation  of  God,  but  the  co-operation  of  man,  are 
distinctly  marked  ;  and  are  both  held  up  as  necessary  to  the  production 
of  the  grand  result — "  salvation." 

It  will  appear,  then,  from  these  observations,  that  the  question,  "  Who 
maketh  thee  to  difl^er?"  as  urged  by  Mr.  Scott  and  others  from  the 
tune  of  Calvin,  is  a  very  inapposite  one  to  their  purpose,  for, 

2 


378  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

First,  it  is  a  question  which  the  apostle  asks  with  no  reference  to  a 
difference  in  reUgious  state,  but  only  with  respect  to  gifts  and  endow- 
ments. Secondly,  the  Holy  Ghost  gives  no  authority  for  such  an 
application  of  his  words,  as  is  thus  made,  in  any  other  part  of  Scripture. 
Thirdly,  it  cannot  be  employed  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  dragged 
forth  so  often  from  its  context  and  meaning ;  for,  in  the  use  thus  made 
of  it,  it  is  falsely  assumed,  that  ihe  two  men  instanced,  the  one  who 
rejects,  and  the  other  who  embraces  the  Gospel,  are  not  each  endowed 
with  sufficient  grace  to  enable  them  to  receive  God's  gracious  offer. 
Now  this,  we  may  again  say,  must  either  be  denied  or  affirmed.  If  it 
be  affirmed,  then  the  difference  between  the  two  men  consists,  not  where 
they  place  it,  in  the  destitution  or  deficiency  on  the  one  hand,  or  in  the 
plenitude  on  the  other,  of  the  grace  of  God  ;  but  in  the  tise  of  grace : 
and  when  they  say,  "  it  is  God  which  maketh  them  to  differ,"  they  say 
in  fact,  that  it  is  God  that  not  only  gives  sufficient  grace  to  each ;  but 
uses  that  grace  for  them.  For  if  it  be  allowed  that  sufficient  grace  for 
repentance  and  faith  is  given  to  each,  then  the  true  difference  between 
them  is,  that  one  repents,  and  the  other  does  not  repent ;  the  one 
believes,  and  the  other  does  not  believe  :  if,  therefore,  this  difference  is 
to  be  attributed  to  God  directly,  then  the  act  of  repenting,  and  the  act 
of  believing,  are  both  the  acts  of  God.  If  they  hesitate  to  avow  this, 
for  it  is  an  absurdity,  then  either  they  must  give  up  the  question  as 
totally  useless  to  them,  or  else  take  the  other  side  of  the  alternative,  that 
to  all  who  reject  the  Gospel,  sufficient  grace  to  receive  it  is  not  given. 
How  then  will  that  serve  them  ?  They  may  say,  it  is  true,  when  they 
take  the  man  who  embraces  the  Gospel,  "Who  maketh  him  to  differ 
but  God,  who  gives  this  sufficient  grace  to  him  ?"  but  then  we  have  an 
equal  right  to  take  the  man  who  rejects  the  Gospel,  and  ask,  "  Who 
maketh  him  to  differ"  from  the  man  that  embraces  it  ?  To  this  they 
cannot  reply  that  he  maketh  himself  to  differ ;  for  that  which  they  here 
lay  down  is,  that  he  has  either  no  grace  at  all  imparted  to  him  to  enable 
him  to  act  as  the  other ;  or,  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  no  suffi- 
cient degree  of  it  to  produce  a  true  faith  ;  that  he  never  had  that  grace  ; 
that  he  is,  and  always  must  remain,  as  destitute  of  it  as  when  he  was 
born.  He  does  not,  therefore,  make  himself  to  differ  from  the  man  who 
embraces  the  Gospel ;  for  he  has  no  power  to  imitate  his  example,  and 
to  make  himself  equal  with  him ;  and  the  only  answer  to  our  question 
is,  "  that  it  is  God  who  maketh  him  to  differ  from  the  other,"  by  with- 
holding that  grace  by  which  alone  he  could  be  prevented  from  rejecting 
the  Gospel ;  and  this,  so  far  from  "  setthng  the  whole  controversy," 
is  the  very  point  in  debate. 

This  dilemma,  then,  will  prove,  when  examined,  but  inconvenient  to 
themselves ;  for  if  sufficiency  of  grace  be  allowed  to  the  unconverted, 
then  the  Calvinists  make  the  acts  of  grace,  as  well  as  the  gift  of  grace  itself, 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAX    INSTITUTES.  379 

to  be  the  work  of  God  in  the  elect :  if  sufficiency  of  grace  is  denied, 
then  the  unbeUef  and  condemnation  of  the  wicked  are  not  from  them- 
selves,  but  from  God.  (9)  The  fact  is,  that  this  supposed  puzzle  has 
been  always  used  ad  captandtim ;  and  is  unworthy  so  grave  a  contro- 
versy ;  and  as  to  the  pretence,  that  the  admission  of  a  power  in  man  to 
use  or  to  abuse  the  grace  of  God  involves  some  merit  or  ground  of  glo- 
rying in  man  himself,  this  is  equally  fallacious.  The  power  "  to  will 
and  to  do,"  is  the  sole  result  of  the  working  of  God  in  man.  All  is  of 
grace :  "  By  the  grace  of  God,"  must  every  one  say,  "  I  am  what  I 
am."  Here  is  no  dispute ;  every  good  thought,  desire,  and  tendency 
of  the  heart,  and  all  its  power  to  turn  these  to  practical  account  by 
prayer,  by  faith,  by  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace,  through  which  new 
power  "  to  will  and  to  do,"  new  power  to  use  grace,  as  well  as  new 
grace,  is  communicated,  is  of  God.  Every  good  act,  therefore,  is  the 
use  of  a  communicated  power  which  is  given  of  grace,  as  the  stretch- 
ing out  of  the  withered  hand  of  the  healed  man  was  the  use  of  the 
power  communicated  to  his  imbecility,  and  still  working  with  the  act, 
though  not  the  act  itself;  and  to  attempt  to  lay  a  ground  of  boasting 
and  self  sufficiency  in  the  assisted  acceptance  of  the  grace  of  God  by 
us ;  and  the  empowered  submission  of  our  hearts  to  it,  is  as  manifestly 
absurd  as  it  would  be  to  say,  that  the  man,  whose  arm  was  withered, 
had  great  reason  to  congratulate  himself  on  his  share  in  the  gloiy  of  the 
miracle,  because  he  himself  stretched  out  the  invigorated  member  at  the 
command  of  Christ ;  and  because  it  was  not,  in  fact,  lifted  up  by  the 
hand  of  him  who,  in  that  act  of  faith  and  obedience,  had  healed  him. 

The  question  of  the  invincibihty  of  Divine  grace,  is  a  point  to  be  in 
another  place  considered.  ■ 

Acts  xviii,  9,  10,  «  Be  not  afraid,  but  speak,  and  hold  not  thy  peace ; 
for  I  am  with  thee,  and  no  man  shall  set  on  thee  to  hurt  thee  ;  for  / 
have  much  people  in  this  city.^^ 

Mr.  Scott,  to  whom  the  doctrine  of  election  is  always  present,  says, 
"  In  this  Christ  evidently  spake  of  those  who  were  his  by  election,  the 
gift  of  the  Father,  and  his  own  purchase ;  though,  at  that  time,  in  an 
unconverted  state."  {Notes  in  loc.)  It  would  have  been  more  "  evident" 
had  this  been  said  by  the  writer  of  the  Acts  as  well  as  by  Mr.  Scott,  or 
any  thing  approaching  to  it.  The  "  evidence,"  we  fear,  was  all  in  Mr. 
Scott's  predisposition  of  mind ;  for  it  nowhere  else  appears.  The  ex- 
pression is,  at  least,  capable  of  two  very  satisfactory  interpretations,  in- 
dependent of  the  theory  of  Calvinistic  election.  It  may  mean,  that  there 
were  many  well  disposed  and  serious  inquirers  among  the  "  Greeks"  in 

(9)  This  Calvin  scruples  not  to  say,  "  The  supreme  Lord,  therefore,  by  de- 
p)-iving  of  the  communication  of  his  light,  and  leaving  in  darkness  those  whom 
he  has  reprobated,  makes  way  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  own  predestina- 
tion."  {Inst.  lib.  iii,  c.  24.) 

2 


380  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Corinth ;  for  when  Paul  turned  from  the  Jews,  he  "  entered  into  the 
house  of  Justus,  one  that  worshipped  God."  This  man  was  a  Greek 
proselyte  ;  and,  from  various  parts  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it  is  plain, 
that  this  class  of  people  were  not  only  numerous,  but  generally  received 
the  Gospel  with  joy,  and  were  among  the  first  who  joined  the  primitive 
Churches.  They  manifested  their  readiness  to  receive  the  Gospel  in 
Corinth  itself  when  the  Jews  "  opposed  and  blasphemed ;"  and  it  is  not 
improbable,  that  to  such  proselytes,  who  were  in  many  places  "  a  peo- 
ple prepared  of  the  Lord,"  reference  is  made,  when  our  Saviour, 
speaking  to  Paul  in  this  vision,  says,  "  I  have  much  people  in  this  city." 
Suppose,  however,  he  speaks  prospectively  and  prophetically,  making 
his  foreknowledge  of  an  event  the  means  of  encouraging  the  labours  of 
his  devoted  apostle,  the  doctrine  of  election  follows  neither  from  the  fact 
of  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  nor  from  prophetic  declarations  grounded 
upon  it.  Even  Calvin  founds  not  election  upon  God's  foreknowledge  ; 
but  upon  his  decree. 

A  ievf  other  passages  might  be  added,  which  are  sometimes  adduced 
as  proofs  of  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  "  election"  and  "  distinguishing 
grace ;"  but  they  are  all  either  explained  by  that  view  of  Scriptural  elec- 
tion which  has  been  at  large  adduced,  or  are  of  very  obvious  interpreta- 
tion. I  believe  that  I  have  omitted  none,  on  which  any  great  stress  is 
laid  in  the  controversy ;  and  the  reader  will  judge  how  far  those  which 
have  been  examined  serve  to  support  those  inferences  which  tend  to 
hmit  the  universal  import  of  those  declarations  which  prove,  in  the  lite- 
ral sense  of  the  terms,  that  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  "  by  the 
grace  of  God,  tasted  death  for  every  man." 


i 


CHAPTER  XXVIIL 

Theories  which  limit  the  Extent  of  the  Death  of  Christ. 

We  have,  in  the  foregoing  attempt  to  estabUsh  the  doctrine  of  the 
redemption  of  all  mankind  against  our  Calvinistic  brethren,  taken  their 
scheme  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  usually  understood,  without  noticing 
those  minuter  shades  with  which  the  system  has  been  varied.  In  this 
discussion,  it  is  hoped,  that  no  expression  has  hitherto  escaped  incon- 
sistent with  candour.  Doctrinal  truth  would  be  as  little  served  by  this 
as  Christian  charity ;  nor  ought  it  ever  to  be  forgotten  by  the  theologi- 
cal inquirer,  that  the  system  which  we  have  brought  under  review  has, 
in  some  of  its  branches,  always  embodied,  and  often  preserved  in  various 
parts  of  Christendom,  that  truth  which  is  vital  to  the  Church,  and  salu- 
tary to  the  souls  of  men.  It  has  numbered,  too,  among  its  votaries, 
many  venerable  names ;  and  many  devoted  and  holy  men,  whose  writ- 
ings often  rank  among  the  brightest  lights  of  Scriptural  criticism  and 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  381 

practical  divinity.  We  think  the  peculiarities  of  their  creed  clearly 
opposed  to  the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  fairly  chargeable  in  argument 
with  all  those  consequences  we  have  deduced  from  them ;  and  which, 
were  it  necessary  to  the  discussion,  might  be  characterized  in  still 
stronger  language.  Those  consequences,  however,  let  it  be  observed, 
we  only  exhibit  as  logical  ones.  By  many  of  this  class  of  divines  they 
are  denied ;  by  others  modified ;  and  by  a  third  party  explained  away 
to  their  own  satisfaction  by  means  of  metaphysical  and  subtle  distinc- 
tions. As  logical  consequences  only  they  are,  therefore,  in  such  cases, 
fairly  to  be  charged  upon  our  opponents,  in  any  disputes  which  may 
arise.  By  keeping  this  distinction  in  view,  the  discussion  of  these 
points  may  be  preserved  unfettered ;  and  candour  and  charity  sustain 
no  wound. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  justify  the  general  view  we  have  taken  of 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election,  predestination,  and  partial  redemp- 
tion, by  adducing  the  sentiments  of  Calvin  himself,  and  of  Calvinistic 
theologians  and  Churches  ;  after  which  our  attention  may  be  directed, 
briefly,  to  some  of  those  more  modern  modifications  of  the  system, 
which,  though  they  differ  not,  as  we  think,  so  materially,  from  the 
original  model  as  some  of  their  advocates  suppose,  yet  make  conces- 
sions not  unimportant  to  the  more  liberal,  and,  as  we  believe,  the  only 
Scriptural  theory. 

Calvin  has  at  large  opened  his  sentiments  on  election,  in  the  third 
book  of  his  Institutes.  (The  following  quotations  are  made  from  Allen's 
translation.  London,  1823.)  "  Predestination  we  call  the  eternal  decree 
of  God  ;  by  which  he  hath  determined  in  himself  what  he  would  have 
to  become  of  every  individual  of  mankind.  For  they  are  not  all  created 
with  similar  destiny ;  but  eternal  hfe  is  foreordained  for  some,  and  eter- 
nal  damnation  for  others.  Every  man,  therefore,  being  created  for  one 
or  other  of  these  ends,  we  say,  he  is  predestinated,  either  to  Ufe,  or  to 
death."  After  having  spoken  of  the  election  of  the  race  of  Abraham, 
and  then  of  particular  branches  of  that  race,  he  proceeds,  "  Though  it  is 
sufficiently  clear  that  God,  in  his  secret  counsel,  freely  chooses  whom  he 
will,  and  rejects  others,  his  gratuitous  election  is  but  half  displayed  till 
we  come  to  particular  individuals,  to  whom  God  not  only  offers  salva- 
tion, but  assigns  it  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  certainty  of  the  effect  is 
Uable  to  no  suspense  or  doubt."  He  sums  up  the  chapter,  in  which  he 
thus  generally  states  the  doctrine,  in  these  words :  (chap.  21,  book  iii :)' 
"  In  conformity,  therefore,  to  the  clear  doctrine  of  the  Scripture,  we 
assert,  that  by  an  eternal  and  immutable  counsel,  God  hath  once  for  all 
determined  both  whom  he  would  admit  to  salvation,  and  whom  he  would 
condemn  to  destruction.  We  affirm  that  this  counsel,  eis  far  as  con- 
cerns the  elect,  is  founded  on  his  gratuitous  mercy,  totally  irrespective  of 
human  merit ;  but  that  to  those  whom  he  devotes  to  condemnation,  the 

2 


382  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

gate  of  life  is  closed  by  a  just  and  irreprehensible,  but  incomprehensi- 
ble judgment.  In  the  elect,  we  consider  calling  as  an  evidence  of  elec- 
tion ;  and  justification  as  another  token  of  its  manifestation,  till  they 
arrive  in  glory,  which  constitutes  its  completion.  As  God  seals  his  elect 
by  vocation  and  justification,  so  by  excluding  the  reprobate  from  the 
knowledge  of  his  name,  and  sanctification  of  his  Spirit,  he  aflfords  sm- 
other indication  of  the  judgment  that  awaits  them." 

In  the  commencement  of  the  following  chapter  (book  iii,  chap.  22,) 
he  thus  rejects  the  notion  that  predestination  is  to  be  understood  as 
resulting  from  God's  foreknowledge  of  what  would  be  the  conduct  of 
either  the  elect  or  the  reprobate.  "  It  is  a  notion  commonly  enter- 
tained,  that  God,  foreseeing  what  would  be  the  respective  merits  of 
every  individual,  makes  a  correspondent  distinction  between  different 
persons ;  that  he  adopts  as  his  children  such  as  he  foreknows  will  be 
deserving  of  his  grace ;  and  devotes  to  the  damnation  of  death  others, 
whose  dispositions  he  sees  will  be  inclined  to  wickedness  and  impiety. 
Thus  they  not  only  obscure  election  by  covering  it  with  the  veil  of  fore- 
knowledge, but  pretend  that  it  originates  in  another  cause."  Consist- 
ently with  this,  he  a  httle  farther  on  asserts,  that  election  does  not  flow 
from  holiness  ;  but  holiness  from  election.  "  For  when  it  is  said,  that 
the  faithful  are  elected  that  they  should  be  holy,  it  is  fully  implied,  that 
the  holiness  they  were  in  future  to  possess,  had  its  origin  in  election." 
He  proceeds  to  quote  the  example  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  as  loved  and 
hated  before  they  had  done  good  or  evil,  to  show  that  the  only  reason 
of  election  and  reprobation  is  to  be  placed  in  God's  "  secret  counsel." 
He  will  not  allow  the  future  wickedness  of  the  reprobate  to  have  been 
considered  in  the  decree  of  their  rejection,  any  more  than  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  elect  as  influencing  their  better  fate.  "  God  hath  mercy  on 
whom  he  will  have  mercy ;  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.  You  see 
how  he  (the  apostle)  attributes  both  to  the  mere  will  of  God.  If, 
therefore,  we  can  assign  no  reason  why  he  grants  mercy  to  his  people, 
but  because  such  is  his  pleasure,  neither  shall  we  find  any  other  cause 
but  his  will  for  the  reprobation  of  others.  For  when  God  is  said  to 
harden,  or  show  mercy  to  whom  he  pleases,  men  are  taught  by  this  de- 
claration, to  seek  no  cause  beside  his  willJ'^  (Book  iii,  chap.  22.) — 
"  Many,  indeed,  as  if  they  wished  to  avert  odium  from  God,  admit 
election  in  such  a  way  as  to  deny  that  any  one  is  reprobated.  But 
this  is  puerile  and  absurd  ;  because  election  itself  could  not  exist  with- 
out being  opposed  to  reprobation : — whom  God  passes  by,  he  therefore 
reprobates ;  and  from  no  other  cause  than  his  determination  to  exclude 
them  from  the  inheritance  which  he  predestines  for  his  children."  (Book 
iii,  chap.  23.) 

This  is  the  scheme  of  predestination  as  exhibited  by  Calvin  ;  and  it 
is  remarkable,  that  the  answers  which  he  is  compelled  to  give  to  objec- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  383 

tions  did  not  unfold  to  this  great  and  acute  man  its  utter  contrariety  to 
the  testimony  of  God,  and  to  all  estabUshed  notions  of  equity  among 
men.  To  the  objection  taken  from  justice,  he  repUes,  "  They  (the  ob- 
jectors) inquire  by  what  right  the  Lord  is  angry  with  his  creatures  who 
had  not  provoked  him  by  any  previous  offence  ;  for  that  to  devote  to 
destruction  whom  he  pleases,  is  more  like  the  caprice  of  a  tyrant,  than 
the  lawful  sentence  of  a  judge.  If  such  thoughts  ever  enter  into  the 
minds  of  pious  men,  they  will  be  sufficiently  enabled  to  break  their  vio- 
lence by  this  one  consideration,  how  exceedingly  presumptuous  it  is, 
only  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  Divine  will ;  which  is,  in  fact,  and 
is  justly  entitled  to  be,  the  cause  of  every  thing  that  exists.  For  if  it 
has  any  cause,  then  there  must  be  something  antecedent  on  which  it 
depends,  which  it  is  impious  to  suppose.  For  the  will  of  God  is  the 
highest  rule  of  justice ;  so  that  what  he  wills  must  be  considered  just, 
for  this  very  reason,  because  he  wills  it."  The  evasions  are  here  curi- 
ous. 1.  He  assumes  the  very  thing  in  dispute,  that  God  has  willed  the 
destruction  of  any  part  of  the  human  race,  "  for  no  other  cause  than 
because  he  wills  it ;"  of  which  assumption  there  is  not  only  not  a  word 
of  proof  in  Scripture ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  all  Scripture  ascribes  the 
death  of  him  that  dieth  to  his  own  will,  and  not  to  the  will  of  God  ;  and 
therefore  contradicts  his  statement.  2.  He  pretends  that  to  assign  any 
cause  to  the  Divine  will  is  to  suppose  something  antecedent  to,  some- 
thing above  God,  and,  therefore,  "  impious  ;"  as  if  we  might  not  sup- 
pose something  in  God  to  be  the  rule  of  his  will,  not  only  without  any 
impiety,  but  with  truth  and  piety ;  as,  for  instance,  his  perfect  wisdom, 
holiness,  justice,  and  goodness :  or,  in  other  words,  to  believe  the  exer- 
cise of  his  will  to  flow  trom  the  perfection  of  his  whole  nature  ;  a  much 
more  honourable  and  Scriptural  view  of  the  will  of  God  than  that  which 
subjects  it  to  no  rule,  even  in  the  nature  of  God  himself.  3.  When  he 
calls  the  will  of  God,  "  the  highest  rule  of  justice,"  beyond  which  we 
cannot  push  our  inquiries,  he  confounds  the  will  of  God,  as  a  rule  of 
justice  to  us,  and  as  a  rule  to  himself.  This  will  is  our  rule  ;  yet  even 
then,  because  we  know  that  it  is  the  will  of  a  perfect  being ;  but  when 
Calvin  represents  mere  will  as  constituting  God's  own  rule  of  justice,  he 
shuts  out  knowledge,  discrimination  of  the  nature  of  things,  and  holi- 
ness ;  which  is  saying  something  very  different  to  that  great  truth,  that 
God  cannot  will  any  thing  but  what  is  perfectly  just.  It  is  to  say  that 
Wind  will,  will  which  has  no  respect  to  any  thing  but  itself,  is  God's 
highest  rule  of  justice  ;  a  position  which,  if  presented  abstractedly,  many 
of  the  most  ultra  Calvinists  would  spurn.  4.  He  determines  the  ques- 
tion by  the  authority  of  his  own  metaphysics,  and  totally  forgets  that 
one  dictum  of  inspiration  overturns  his  whole  theory, — God  "  icUleth  all 
men  to  be  saved  :"  a  declaration,  which,  in  no  part  of  the  sacred  volume, 
is  opposed  or  limited  by  any  contrary  declciration. 

2 


384  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Calvin  is  not,  however,  content  thus  to  leave  the  matter ;  but  resorts 
to  an  argument  in  which  he  has  been  generally  followed  by  those  who 
have  adopted  his  system  with  some  mitigations.      "  As  we  are  all  cor- 
rupted by  sin,  we  must  necessarily  be  odious  to  God,  and  that  not  from 
tyrannical  cruelty ;  but  in  the  most  equitable  estimation  of  justice.     If 
all  whom  the  Lord  predestinates  to  death  are,  in  their  natural  condi- 
tion, Uable  to  the  sentence  of  death,  what  injustice  do  they  complain  of 
receiving  from  him?"      To  this  Calvin  very  fairly  states  the  obvious 
rejoinder  made  in  his  day ;  and  which  the  common  sense  of  mankind 
will  always  make, — "  They  object,  were  they  not  by  the  decree  of  God 
antecedently  predestinated  to  that  corruption  which  is  now  stated  as  the 
cause  of  their  condemnation  ?     When  they  perish  in  their  corruption, 
therefore,  they  only  suffer  the  punishment  of  that  misery  into  which,  in 
consequence  of  his  predestination,  Adam  fell,  and  precipitated  his  poste^ 
rity  with  him."     The  manner  in  which  Calvin  attempts  to  refute  this 
objection,  shows  how  truly  unanswerable  it  is  upon  his  system.     "  I 
confess,"  says  he,  "  indeed,  that  all  the  descendants  of  Adam  fell,  by  the 
Divine  will,  into  that  miserable  condition  in  which  they  are  now  in- 
volved ;  and  this  is  what  I  asserted  from  the  beginning,  that  we  must 
always  return  at  last  to  the  sovereign  determination  of  God's  will ;  the 
cause  of  which  is  hidden  in  himself     But  it  follows  not,  therefore,  that 
God  is  liable  to  this  reproach  ;  for  we  v/ill  answer  them  in  the  language 
of  Paul,  '  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God  1  Shall  the  thing 
formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it,  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  V  "— 
That  is,  in  order  to  escape  the  pinch  of  the  objection,  he  assumes,  that 
St.  Paul  affirms  that  God  has  "  formed"  a  part  of  the  human  race  for 
eternal  misery  ;  and  that  by  imposing  silence  upon  them,  he  intended  to 
declare  that  this  proceeding  in  God  was  just.     Now  the  passage  may 
be  proved  from  the  context  to  mean  no  such  thing ;  but,  if  that  failed, 
and  ii  were  more  obscure  in  its  meaning  than  it  really  is,  such  an  inter- 
pretation would  be  contradicted  by  many  other  plain  texts  of  Holy  Writ, 
of  which  Calvin  takes  no  notice.     Even  if  this  text  would  serve  the 
purpose  better,  it  gives  no  answer  to  the  objection ;  for  we  are  brought 
round  again,  as  indeed  Calvin  confesses,  to  his  former,  and  indeed  only 
argument,  that  the  whole  matter,  as  he  states  it,  is  to  be  referred  back 
to  the  Divine  will ;    which  will,  though  perfectly  arbitrary,  is,  as  he 
contends,  the  highest  rule  of  justice.      «  I  say,  with  Augustine,  that  the 
Lord  created  those  whom  he  certainly  foreknew  would  fall  into  destruc- 
tion ;  and  that  this  was  actually  so,  because  he  willed  it ;  but  of  his 
will,  it  belongs  not  to  us  to  demand  the  reason,  which  we  are  incapable 
of  comprehending ;  nor  is  it  reasonable  that  the  Divine  will  should  be 
made  the  subject  of  controversy  with  us,  which  is  only  another  name 
for  the  highest  rule  of  justice."      Thus  he  shuts  us  out  from  pursuing 
the  argument.     When  God  places  fences  against  our  approach,  we 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  385 

grant,  that  we  are  bound  not  "  to  break  through  and  gaze ;"  but  not 
so,  when  man,  without  authority,  usurps  this  authority,  and  warns  us  off 
from  his  own  inclosures,  as  though  we  were  trespassing  upon  the  pecu- 
Har  domains  of  God  himself.  Calvin's  evasion  proves  the  objection 
unanswerable.  For  if  all  is  to  be  resolved  into  the  mere  will  of  God  as 
to  the  destruction  of  the  reprobate ;  if  they  were  created  for  this  pur- 
pose, as  Calvin  expressly  affirms ;  if  they  fell  into  their  corruption  in 
pursuance  of  God's  determination ;  if,  as  he  had  said  before,  "  God 
passes  them  by,  and  reprobates  them,  from  no  other  cause  than  his 
determination  to  exclude  them  from  the  inheritance  of  his  children," 
why  refer  to  their  natural  corruption  at  all,  and  their  being  odious  to 
God  in  that  state,  since  the  same  reason  is  given  for  their  corruption  as 
for  their  reprobation  ? — Not  any  fault  of  theirs ;  but  the  mere  will  of 
God,  "  the  reprobation  hidden  in  his  secret  counsel,"  and  not  grounded 
on  the  visible  and  tangible  fact  of  their  demerit.  Thus  the  election 
taught  by  Calvin  is  not  a  choice  of  some  persons  to  peculiar  grace  from 
the  whole  mass,  equally  deserving  of  punishment ;  (though  this  is  a 
sophism;)  for,  in  that  case,  the  decree  of  reprobation  would  rest  upon 
God's  foreknowledge  of  those  passed  by  as  corrupt  and  guilty,  which 
notion  he  rejects.  "  For  since  God  foresees  future  events  only  in  con- 
sequence of  his  decree  that  they  shall  happen,  it  is  useless  to  contend 
about  foreknowledge,  while  it  is  evident  that  all  things  come  to  pass  rather 
by  ordination  and  decree.  It  is  a  horrible  decree,  I  confess ;  but  no 
one  can  deny  that  God  foreknew  the  future  fate  of  man  before  he  cre- 
ated him ;  and  that  he  did  foreknow  it,  because  it  was  appointed  by  his 
own  decree."  Agreeably  to  this,  he  repudiates  the  distinction  between 
will  and  permission.  "  For  what  reason  shall  we  assign  for  his  permit- 
ting it,  but  because  it  is  his  will  ?  It  is  not  probable,  however,  that  man 
procured  his  own  destruction  by  the  mere  permission,  and  without  any 
appointment  of  God." 

With  this  doctrine  he  again  makes  a  singular  attempt  to  reconcile 
the  demerit  of  men  : — "  Their  perdition  depends  on  the  Divine  predes- 
tination in  such  a  manner,  that  the  cause  and  matter  of  it  are  found  in 
themselves.  For  the  first  man  fell  because  the  Lord  had  determined  it 
should  so  happen.  The  reason  of  this  determination  is  unknown  to  us. 
Man,  therefore,  falls  according  to  the  appointment  of  Divine  providence ; 
but  he  falls  by  his  own  fault.  The  Lord  had  a  little  before  pronounced 
every  thing  that  he  had  made  to  be  *  very  good.'  Whence,  then,  comes 
the  depravity  of  man  to  revolt  from  his  God?  Lest  it  should  be  thought  to 
come  from  creation,  God  approved  and  commended  what  had  proceeded 
from  himself.  By  his  own  wickedness,  therefore,  man  corrupted  the 
nature  he  had  received  pure  from  the  Lord,  and  by  his  fall  he  drew  all 
his  posterity  with  him  to  destruction."  It  is  in  this  way  that  Calvin 
attempts  to  avoid  the  charge  of  making  God  the  author  of  sin.      But 

Vol.  IL  25 


386  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

how  God  should  not  merely  permit  the  defection  of  the  first  man,  but 
appoint  it,  and  will  it,  and  that  his  will  should  be  the  "  necessity  of 
things,"  all  which  he  had  before  asserted,  and  yet  that  Deity  should  not 
be  the  author  of  that  which  he  appointed^  willed,  and  imposed  a  neces- 
sity upon,  would  be  rather  a  delicate  inquiry.  It  is  enough  that  Calvin 
rejects  the  impious  doctrine,  and  even  though  his  principles  directly 
lead  to  it,  since  he  has  put  in  his  disclaimer,  he  is  entitled  to  be  ex- 
empted fi'om  the  charge ; — but  the  logical  conclusion  is  inevitable. 

In  much  the  same  manner  he  contends  that  the  necessity  of  sinning 
is  laid  upon  the  reprobate  by  the  ordination  of  God,  and  yet  denies  God 
to  be  the  author  of  their  sin,  since  the  corruption  of  men  was  derived 
from  Adam,  by  his  own  fault,  and  not  from  God.  Here,  also,  although 
the  difficulty  still  remains  of  conceiving  how  a  necessity  of  sinning 
should  be  laid  on  the  descendants  of  Adam,  and  that  without  any  coun- 
teraction of  grace  in  the  case  of  the  reprobate,  and  that  this  should  be 
attributable  to  the  will  of  God  as  its  cause,  while  yet  God,  in  no  sense 
injurious  to  his  perfections,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  sin,  we 
still  admit  Calvin's  disclaimer ;  but  then  he  cannot  have  the  advantage 
on  both  sides,  and  must  renounce  this  or  some  of  his  former  positions. 
He  exhorts  us  "  rather  to  contemplate  the  evident  cause  of  condemna- 
tion, which  is  nearer  to  us,  in  the  corrupt  nature  of  mankind,  than  search 
after  a  hidden,  and  altogether  incomprehensible  one,  in  the  predestina- 
tion of  God."  "For,  though,  by  the  eternal  providence  of  God,  man  was 
created  to  that  misery  to  which  he  is  subject,  yet  the  ground  of  it  he 
has  derived  from  himself,  not  God;  since  he  is  thus  ruined,  solely  in 
consequence  of  his  having  degenerated  from  the  pure  creation  of  God 
to  vicious  and  impure  depravity."  Thus,  almost  in  the  same  breath,  he 
affirms  that  men  became  reprobate  from  no  other  cause  than  "  the  will 
of  God,"  and  his  "  sovereign  determination ;" — that  men  have  no  reason 
"  to  expostulate  with  God,  if  they  are  predestinated  to  eternal  death, 
without  any  demerit  of  their  own,  merely  by  his  sovereign  will ;" — and 
then,  that  the  corrupt  nature  of  mankind  is  the  evident  and  nearer  cause 
of  condemnation ;  (which  cause,  however,  was  still  a  matter  of  "  ap- 
pointment," and  "  ordination,"  not  "  permission  ;")  and  that  man  is 
"  ruined  solely  in  consequence  of  his  having  degenerated  from  the  pure 
state  in  which  God  created  him."  Now  these  propositions  manifestly 
fight  with  each  other ;  for  if  the  reason  of  reprobation  be  laid  in  man's 
corruption,  it  cannot  be  laid  in  the  mere  will  and  sovereign  determina- 
tion of  God,  unless  we  suppose  him  to  be  the  author  of  sin.  It  is  this 
offensive  doctrine  only  which  can  reconcile  them.  For  if  God  so  wills, 
and  appoints,  and  necessitates  the  depravity  of  man,  as  to  be  the  author 
of  it,  then  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  saying  that  the  ruin  of  the  repro- 
bate is  both  from  the  mere  will  of  God,  and  from  the  corruption  of  their 
nature,  which  is  but  the  result  of  that  will.  The  one  is  then,  as  Calvin 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  387 

states,  the  "  evident  and  nearer  cause,"  the  other  the  more  remote  and 
hidden  one ;  yet  they  have  the  same  source,  and  are  substantially  acts 
of  the  same  will.  But  if  it  be  denied  that  God  is,  in  any  sense,  the 
author  of  evil,  and  if  sin  is  from  man  alone,  then  is  the  "  corruption  of 
nature"  the  effect  of  an  independent  will ;  and  if  this  be  the  "  real 
source,"  as  he  says,  of  men's  condemnation,  then  the  decree  of  reproba- 
tion rests  not  upon  the  sovereign  will  of  God,  as  its  sole  cause,  which  he 
affirms ;  but  upon  a  cause  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  first  man.  But 
as  this  is  denied,  then  the  other  must  follow.  Calvin  himself  indeed 
contends  for  the  perfect  concurrence  of  these  proximate  and  remote 
causes,  although,  in  point  of  fact,  to  have  been  perfectly  consistent  with 
himself,  he  ought  rather  to  have  called  the  mere  will  of  God  the  cause 
of  the  decree  of  reprobation,  and  the  corruption  of  man  the  means  by 
which  it  is  carried  into  effect :  language  which  he  sanctions,  and  which 
many  of  his  followers  have  not  scrupled  to  adopt. 

So  fearfully  does  this  opinion  involve  in  it  the  consequences  that  in 
sin  man  is  tlie  instrument,  and  God  the  actor,  that  it  cannot  be  main- 
tained, as  stated  by  Calvin,  without  this  conclusion.  For  as  two  causes 
of  reprobation  are  expressly  laid  down,  they  must  be  either  opposed  to 
each  other,  or  be  consenting.  If  they  are  opposed,  the  scheme  is  given 
up ;  if  consenting,  then  are  both  reprobation  and  human  corruption  the 
results  of  the  same  will,  the  same  decree  and  necessity.  It  would  bo 
trifling  to  say  that  the  decree  does  not  influence ;  for  if  so,  it  is  no  de- 
cree in  Calvin's  sense,  who  understands  the  decree  of  God,  as  the  fore- 
going extracts  and  the  whole  third  book  of  his  Institutes  plainly  show, 
as  appointing  what  shall  be,  and  by  that  appointment  making  it  necessary. 
Otherwise  he  could  not  reject  the  distinction  between  will  and  permis- 
sion, and  avow  the  sentiment  of  St.  Augustine,  "  that  the  will  of  God  is 
the  necessity  of  things ;  and  that  what  he  has  willed  will  necessarily 
come  to  pass."  (Book  iii,  chap.  23,  sec.  8.)  So,  in  writing  to  Castalio/ 
he  makes  the  sin  of  Adam  the  result  of  an  act  of  God.  "  You  say 
Adam  fell  by  his  free  will.  I  except  against  it.  That  he  might  not 
fall,  he  stood  in  need  of  that  strength  and  constancy  with  which  God 
armeth  all  the  elect,  as  long  as  he  will  keep  them  blameless.  Whom 
God  has  elected,  he  props  up  with  an  invincible  power  unto  perseverance. 
Why  did  he  not  afibrd  this  to  Adam,  if  he  would  have  had  him  stand  in 
his  integrity?"  (1)  And  with  this  view  of  necessity,  as  resulting  from 
the  decree  of  God,  the  immediate  followers  of  Calvin  coincide  ;  the  end 
and  the  means,  as  to  the  elect,  and  as  to  the  reprobate,  are  equally  fixed 
by  the  decree ;  and  are  both  to  be  traced  to  the  appointing  and  ordain- 
ing will  of  God.  On  such  a  scheme  it  is  therefore  worse  tlian  trifling 
to  attempt  to  make  out  a  case  of  justice  in  favour  of  this  assumed  Divme 
procedure,  by  alleging  the  corruption  and  guilt  of  man  :  a  point  which, 

(1)  Quoted  in  Bishop  Womack's  Calvinist  Cabinet  Unlocked,  p.  34. 

2 


388  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PAKT 

indeed,  Calvin  himself,  in  fact,  gives  up  when  he  says,  "  that  the  repro- 
bate obey  not  the  word  of  God,  when  made  known  to  them,  is  justly 
imputed  to  the  wickedness  and  depravity  of  their  hearts,  provided  it  be 
at  the  same  time  stated,  that  they  are  abandoned  to  this  depravity,  be- 
cause they  have  been  raised  up  by  a  just,  but  inscrutable  judgment  of 
God,  to  display  his  glory  in  their  condemnation."  {Inst,  book  iii,  chap. 
24,  sec.  14.) 

It  is  by  availing  themselves  of  these  ineffectual  struggles  of  Calvin  to 
give  some  colour  of  justice  to  his  reprobating  decree,  by  fixing  upon  the 
corruption  of  man  as  a  cause  of  reprobation,  that  some  of  his  followers 
have  endeavoured,  in  the  very  teeth  of  his  own  express  words,  to  reduce 
his  system  to  supralapsarianism.  This  was  attempted  by  Amyraldus ; 
who  was  answered  by  Curcelloeus,  in  his  tract  "  De  Jure  Dei  in  Crea- 
turas."  This  last  writer,  partly  by  several  of  the  same  passages  we 
have  given  above  from  Calvin's  Institutes,  and  by  extracts  from  his 
other  writings,  proves  that  Calvin  did  by  no  means  consider  man,  as 
fallen,  to  be  the  object  of  reprobation ;  but  man  not  yet  created ;  man 
as  to  be  created,  and  so  reprobated,  under  no  consideration  in  the  Divine 
mind  of  his  fall  or  actual  guilt,  except  as  consequences  of  an  eternal  pre- 
tention of  the  persons  of  the  reprobate,  resolvable  only  into  the  sovereign 
pleasure  of  God.  The  references  he  makes  to  men  as  corrupt,  and  to 
their  con*upt  state  as  the  proximate  cause  of  their  rejection,  are  all 
manifestly  used  to  parry  off  rather  than  to  answer  objections,  and  some- 
what ta  soften,  as  Curcelloeus  observes,  the  harsher  parts  of  his  system. 
And,  indeed,  for  what  reason  are  we  so  often  brought  back  to  that  un- 
failing refuge  of  Calvin  and  his  followers,  "  the  presumption  and  wick- 
edness of  replying  against  God  ?"  For  if  reprobation  be  a  matter  of 
human  desert,  it  cannot  be  a  mystery ;  if  it  be  adequate  punislunent  for 
an  adequate  fault,  there  is  no  need  to  urge  it  upon  us  to  bow  with  sub- 
mission to  an  unexplained  sovereignty.  We  may  add,  there  is  no  need 
to  speak  of  a  remote  or  first  cause  of  reprobation,  if  the  proximate  cause 
will  explain  the  whole  case  ;  and  that  Calvin's  continual  reference  to 
God's  secret  counsel,  and  will,  and  inscrutable  judgmetvt,  could  have  no 
aptness  to  his  argument.  (2)    Among  Enghsh  divines.  Dr.  Twiss  has 

(2)  Amyraldus  tamen,  ut  eum  infra  lapsum  substitisse  probet,  in  constituendo 
reprobationis  objecto,  profert  quaedam  loca  in  quibus  ille  corrupts  masses  meminit, 
et  hujus  decreti  sequitatera  ah  originali  peccato  arcessit.  Sed  facilis  est  responsio. 
Nam  Calvinus  ipse,  qua  ratione  ista  cum  iis  quae  attuli  sint  concilianda  nos  docet: 
nimirum  adhibita  distinctione  inter  propinquam  reprobationis  causam,  quam  resi- 
dentera  in  nobis  corruptionem  esse  vult,  et  remotam,  quae  sit  unicum  Dei  bene- 
placitum.  Et  quanquam  variis  in  locis  causam  propinquam,  veluti  ad  sententiae 
suae  duritiem  emolliendam  aptiorem,  magis  videatur  urgere ;  ita  tamen  id  facit  ut 
non  raro  consilii  arcani,  voluntatis  occulta,  judicii  inscrutabilis,  et  similium,  qui- 
bus priniam  rejectionis  causam  solet  designare,  ibidem  simul  meminerit.    {De 

Jure  Dei,  &c,  cap.  x.) 
o 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  389 

sufficiently  defended  Calvin  from  the  cJiarge,  as  he  esteems  it,  of  sub- 
lapsarianism ;  and,  whatever  merit  Twiss's  own  supralapsarian  creed 
may  have,  his  argument  on  this  point  is  unanswerable. 

This  then  is  the  doctrine  of  Cdvin,  which  was  followed  by  several 
of  the  Churches  of  the  reformation,  who  in  this  respect  distinguished 
themselves  from  the  Lutherans.  (3)  It  was  a  doctrine,  however,  un- 
known in  the  primitive  Churches ;  and  may  be  ranked  among  those 
errors  which  the  pagan  philosophy  subsequently  engrafted  upon  the 
faith  of  Christ.  (4) 

Bishop  Tomline's  "  Refutation  of  Calvinism,"  although  very  errone- 
ous in  some  of  its  doctrinal  views,  has  some  valuable  and  conclusive 
quotations  from  the  ancient  fathers,  proving  "that  the  pecuUar  tenets  of 
Calvinism  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  doctrines  maintained  in  the 
first  ages."  They  also  show  that  there  is  a  great  similarity  between 
some  points  in  that  system  and  several  of  the  most  prevalent  of  the 
early  heresies.  "  The  Manicheans  denied  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will ;  and  spoke  of  the  elect  as  persons  who  could  not  sin,  or  fail  of  sal- 
vation." The  fruitful  source  of  these  notions  was  the  Gnosticism  of 
early  times,  which  was  the  worst  part  of  the  speculative  pagan  philo- 
sophy, engrafted  on  a  corrupted  Christianity ;  and  was  vigorously  op- 
posed by  the  fathers,  from  the  earliest  date.  In  this  system  of  affected 
and  dreaming  wisdom  it  was  assumed,  that  some  souls  were  created 
bad,  and  others  good ;  and  that  they  sprung,  therefore,  from  different 
principles,  or  creators.  Origen  contended,  in  opposition  to  these  specu- 
lations, that  all  souls  were  by  nature  of  the  same  quality ;  that  the  use 
of  the  freedom  of  will  made  the  differences  we  see  in  practice  ;  and  that 

(3)  *'  The  Reformed  Church,  in  the  largest  import  of  the  word,  comprises  all 
the  religious  communities  which  have  separated  themselves  from  the  Church  of 
Rome.  In  this  sense  the  words  are  oflen  used  by  English  writers ;  but  having 
been  adopted  by  the  French  Calvinists  to  describe  their  Church,  this  term  is  most 
commonly  used  on  the  continent  as  a  general  appellation  of  all  the  Churches 
who  profess  the  doctrines  of  Calvin.  About  the  year  1541,  the  Church  of  Ge- 
neva  was  placed  by  the  magistrates  of  that  city  under  the  direction  of  Calvin, 
where  his  learning,  eloquence,  and  talents  for  business,  soon  attracted  general 
notice.  By  degrees  his  fame  reached  to  every  part  of  Europe.  Having  prevailed 
upon  the  senate  of  Geneva  to  found  an  academy,  and  place  it  under  his  superin- 
tendence ;  and  having  filled  it  with  men,  eminent  throughout  Europe  for  their 
learning  and  talent,  it  became  the  favourite  resort  of  all  persons  who  leaned  to 
the  new  principles,  and  sought  religious  and  literary  instruction.  From  Ger- 
many,  France,  Italy,  England,  and  Scotland,  numbers  crowded  to  the  new  aca- 
demy,  and  returned  from  it  to  their  native  countries,  saturated  with  the  doctrine 
of  Geneva;  and  burning  with  zeal  to  propagate  its  creed."  (Butler's  Life  of 
Grotius.) 

(4)  This  was  the  view  of  Melancthon,  who,  in  writing  to  Peucer,  says, 
"  Lcelius  writes  to  me,  and  says,  that  the  controversy  respecting  the  Stoical 
Fate  is  agitated  with  such  uncommon  fervour  at  Geneva,  that  one  individual  is 
cast  into  prison  because  he  happened  to  differ  from  Zeno." 


390  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

this  liberty  rendered  them  hable  to  reward  and  to  punishment ;  ascrib- 
ing, however,  this  recovered  freedom  of  the  will,  which  had  been  lost  in 
Adam,  to  the  grace  of  Christ.  The  Platonism  which  he  mixed  up  with 
his  system  was  justly  resisted  in  the  Church  ;  but  his  doctrine  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will  prevailed  generally  in  the  east.  It  was  afterward 
carried  to  a  dangerous  extent  by  Pelagius,  whose  doctrine  was  modified 
by  Cassian.  These  discussions  called  Augustine  into  a  controversy, 
which  carried  him  to  the  opposite  extreme ;  and  appears  to  have  re- 
vived the  Manichean  notions  of  his  youth  in  such  a  degree  as  greatly  to 
tinge  many  parts  of  his  system  with  that  heresy.  He  was  a  powerful, 
but  unsteady  writer ;  and  has  expressed  himself  so  inconsistently  as  to 
have  divided  the  opinions  of  the  Latin  Church,  where  his  authority  has 
g.lways  been  greatest.  He  held,  although  his  writings  afford  many  pas- 
sages contradictory  of  the  statement,  that  "  God,  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  decreed  to  save  some  men,  and  to  consign  others  to  eternal 
punishment."  Notwithstanding  his  authority,  his  views  on  predestina- 
tion and  grace  appear  to  have  made  no  great  impression  upon  even  the 
western  Church,  where  the  Collations  of  Cassian,  a  disciple  of  Chry- 
sostom,  a  work  which  has  been  called  semi- Pelagian,  was  held  in  ex- 
tensive estimation ;  so  that  substantially  no  great  difference  of  opinion 
appeared  between  the  western  and  the  Greek  Churches,  on  these  points, 
for  several  centuries.  In  the  ninth  century  St.  Austin's  doctrines  were 
revived  and  asserted  by  Goteschale,  who  was  as  absurdly  as  wickedly 
persecuted  on  that  account.  His  doctrines  were  condemned  in  two 
councils ;  and  the  controversy  was  laid  to  rest,  until  the  subtle  questions 
contained  in  it  were  revived  by  the  schoolmen.  Thomas  Aquinas  and 
the  Dominicans  adopted  the  strongest  views  of  Augustine  on  predestina- 
tion and  necessity,  and  improved  upon  them ;  Scotus  and  the  Francis- 
cans took  the  opposite  side ;  and  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  has  not  yet 
been  employed  to  settle  this  point.  By  condemning  Jansenius,  however, 
while  it  has  honoured  Augustine,  that  Church,  as  Bayle  observes,  (Die- 
tionary,  Art,  Augustine,)  has  involved  itself  in  great  perplexities.  The 
authority  of  this  father  with  the  Church  of  Rome  was  indeed  an  advan- 
tage which  the  first  reformers  did  not  fail  to  make  use  of.  From  him 
they  supported  their  views  on  justification  by  faith  ;  and  finding  so  much 
of  evangelical  truth  on  this  and  some  other  subjects  in  his  writings,  they 
were  insensibly  biassed  to  the  worst  parts  of  his  system.  Luther  re- 
covered from  this  error  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life ;  and  the  Lutheran 
Churches  settled  in  the  doctrine  of  universal  redeniption.  (5)  Augustin- 

(5)  "  It  is  pleasing,"  says  Dr.  Copleston,  "  and  satisfactory,  to  trace  the  pro- 
gress of  Melancthon's  opinions  upon  the  subject.  In  the  first  dawning  of  the 
reformation  he,  as  well  as  Luther,  had  been  led  into  those  metaphysical  discus- 
sions which  Calvin  aflerward  moulded  into  a  system,  and  incorporated  with  his 
exposition  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  But  so  early  as  the  year  1529  he  renounced 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  391 

ism,  as  perfected  and  systematized  by  the  able  hand  of  Calvin,  was 
received  by  several  of  the  reformed  Churches ;  and  gave  rise  to  a  con- 
troversy  which  has  remained  to  this  day,  though  happily  it  has  of  late 
been  conducted  with  less  asperity.  The  system,  as  issued  by  Calvin, 
has,  however,  undergone  various  modifications :  some  theologians  and 
their  followers,  having  carried  out  his  principles  to  their  full  length,  so 
as  to  advocate  or  sanction  the  Antinomian  heresy ;  while  others,  either 
to  avoid  this  fearful  result,  or  perceiving  the  discrepancy  of  the  harsher 
parts  of  the  theory  with  the  word  of  God,  have  impressed  upon  it  a  more 
mitigated  aspect. 

The  three  leading  schemes  of  predestination,  prevalent  among  the 
reformed  Churches  previous  to  the  synod  of  Dort,  are  thus  stated  in  the 
celebrated  Declaration  of  Arminius  before  the  states  of  Holland.  They 
comprehend  the  theories  generally  known  by  the  names  of  supralapsa- 
rian  and  sublapsarian. 

"The  FIRST,  or  Creabilitarian,  or  supralapsarian  opinion,  is,  1.  That 
God  has  absolutely  and  precisely  decreed  to  save  certain  particular  men 
by  his  mercy  or  grace  ;  but  to  condemn  others  by  his  justice  ;  and  to  do 
all  this,  without  having  any  regard  in  such  decree  to  righteousness  or 
sin,  obedience  or  disobedience,  which  could  possibly  exist  on  the  part  of 
one  class  of  men,  or  the  other.  2.  That  for  the  execution  of  the  pre- 
ceding decree,  God  determined  to  create  Adam,  and  all  men  in  him,  in 
an  upright  state  of  original  righteousness ;  beside  which,  he  also  or- 
dained them  to  commit  sin,  that  they  might  thus  become  guilty  of  eter- 
nal condemnation,  and  be  deprived  of  original  righteousness.  3.  That 
those  persons  whom  God  has  thus  positively  wished  to  save,  he  has 
decreed,  not  only  to  salvation,  but  also  to  the  means  which  pertain  to 
it ;  that  is,  to  conduct  and  bring  them  to  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  to  per- 
severance in  that  faith  ;  and  that  he  also  leads  them  to  these  results  by 
a  grace  and  power  that  are  irresistible  ;  so  that  it  is  not  possible  for 

this  error,  and  expunged  the  passages  that  contained  it  from  the  later  editions 
of  his  Loci  Theologici.  Luther,  who  had  in  his  early  life  maintained  the  same 
opinions,  after  the  controversy  with  Erasmus  about  free  will,  never  taught  them ; 
and  although  he  did  not,  with  the  candour  of  Melancthon,  openly  retract  what 
he  had  once  written,  yet  he  bestowed  the  highest  commendations  on  the  last 
editions  of  Melancthon's  Work,  containing  this  correction.  {Preface  to  the  first 
volume  of  Luther's  Works,  A  D.  1546.)  He  also  scrupled  not  to  assert  pubUcIy, 
that  at  the  beginning  of  the  reformation,  his  creed  was  not  completely  settled : 
(Laur.  Bampt.  Led.  note  21  to  Sermon  ii :)  and  in  his  last  work  of  any  import- 
ance,  he  is  anxious  to  point  out  the  qualifications  with  which  all  he  had  ever 
said,  on  the  doctrine  of  absolute  necessity,  ought  to  be  received."  "Vos  ergo, 
qui  nunc  me  audistis,  memineritis  me  hoc  docuisse,  non  esse  inquirendum  de 
Prsedestinatione  Dei  absconditi,  sed  in  illis  acquiescendum,  quae  revelantur  per 

vocationem  et  per  ministerium  verbi Haec  eadem  alibi  quoque  in  meis 

libris  protestatus  sum,  et  nunc  etiam  viva  voce  trado :  Ideo  sum  excusatus.  (Op. 
vol.  vi,  p.  325.) 

2 


392  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

them  to  do  otherwise  than  believe,  persevere  in  faith,  and  be  saved, 
4.  That  to  those,  whom,  by  his  absoUite  will,  God  has  foreordained  to 
perdition,  he  has  also  decreed  to  deny  that  grace  which  is  necessary  and 
sufficient  for  salvation  ;  and  does  not,  in  reality,  confer  it  upon  them ;  so 
that  they  are  neither  placed  in  a  possible  condition,  nor  in  any  capacity 
of  believing,  or  of  being  saved."  (6) 

The  SECOND  opinion  differs  from  the  former ;  but  is  still  supralapsa- 
rian.     It  isy-— 

"  1.  That  God  determined  within  himself,  by  an  eternal  immutable 
decree,  to  make,  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  the  smaller  portion  out 
of  the  general  mass  of  mankind,  partakers  of  his  grace  and  glory.  But, 
according  to  his  pleasure,  he  passed  by  the  greater  portion  of  men,  and 
left  them  in  their  own  nature,  which  is  incapable  of  any  thing  super- 
natural ;  and  did  not  communicate  to  them  that  saving  and  supernatural 
grace  by  which  their  nature,  if  it  still  retained  its  integrity,  might  be 
strengthened ;  or  by  which,  if  it  were  corrupted,  it  might  be  restored,  for 
a  demonstration  of  his  own  liberty :  yet  after  God  had  made  these  men 
sinners,  and  guilty  of  death,  he  punished  them  with  death  eternal,  for  a 
demonstration  of  his  justice." — "As  far  as  we  are  capable  of  compre- 
hending their  scheme  of  reprobation,  it  consists  of  two  acts,  that  of  pbe- 
TERiTioN,  and  that  of  predamnation.  Preterition  is  antecedent  to 
all  things,  and  to  all  causes  which  are  either  in  the  things  themselves, 
or  which  arise  out  of  them ;  that  is,  it  has  no  regard  whatever  to  any 
sin,  and  only  views  man  under  an  absolute  and  general  aspect.  Two 
means  are  foreordained  for  the  execution  of  the  act  of  preterition  : 
dereliction  in  a  state  of  nature  which,  by  itself,  is  incapable  of  every 
thing  supernatural ;  and  the  non-communication  of  supernatural  grace, 
by  which  their  nature,  if  in  a  state  of  integrity,  might  be  strengthened, 
and  if  in  a  state  of  corruption,  might  be  restored.  Predamnation  is 
antecedent  to  all  things ;  yet  it  does  by  no  means  exist  without  a  fore- 
knowledge  of  the  cause  of  damnation.  It  views  man  as  a  sinner  obnoxious 
to  damnation  in  Adam,  and  as,  on  this  account,  perishing  through  the 
necessity  of  Divine  justice." 

This  opinion  differs  from  the  first  in  this,  that  it  does  not  lay  down  the 
creation  or  the  fall  as  a  mediate  cause,  foreordained  of  God  for  the  exe- 
cution of  the  decree  of  reprobation ;  yet  this  second  kind  of  predestina- 
tion places  election,  with  regard  to  the  end,  before  the  fall,  as  also 
preterition,  or  passing  by,  which  is  the  first  part  of  reprobation.  "  But 
though  the  inventors  of  this  scheme,"  says  Arminius,  "have  been  desirous 
of  using  the  greatest  precaution,  lest  it  might  be  concluded  from  their 

(6)  This  statement  of  the  supralapsarian  and  sublapsarian  theories,  as  given 
by  Arminius,  might  be  illustrated  and  verified  by  quotations  from  the  elder  Cal- 
vinistic  divines  :  the  reader  will,  however,  find  what  is  amply  sufficient  in  those 
given  in  Bishop  Womack's  Calvinistic  Cabinet  Unlocked. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     LNSTITUTES.  393 

doctrine,  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin  with  as  much  show  of  probabiUty 
as  it  is  deducible  from  the  first  scheme ;  yet  we  shall  discover,  that  the 
fall  of  Adam  cannot  possibly,  according  to  their  views,  be  considered  in 
any  other  manner  than  as  a  necessary  means  for  the  execution  of  the 
preceding  decree  of  predestination.  For,  first,  it  states  that  God  deter- 
mined by  the  decree  of  reprobation  to  deny  to  man  that  grace  which 
was  necessary  for  the  confirmation  and  strengthening  of  his  nature,  that 
it  might  not  be  corrupted  by  sin  ;  which  amounts  to  this,  that  God  de- 
creed not  to  bestow  that  grace  which  was  necessary  to  avoid  sin ;  and 
from  this  must  necessarily  follow  the  transgression  of  man,  as  proceed- 
ing from  a  law  imposed  upon  him.  The  fall  of  man  is,  therefore,  a 
means  ordained  for  the  execution  of  the  decree  of  reprobation." 

"  2.  It  states  the  two  parts  of  reprobation  to  be  preterition  and  pre- 
damnation.  Those  two  parts,  (although  the  latter  views  man  as  a  sinner, 
and  obnoxious  to  justice,)  are,  according  to  that  decree,  connected  to- 
gether by  a  necessary  and  mutual  bond,  and  are  equally  extensive  ;  for 
those  whom  God  passed  by  in  conferring  grace,  are  likewise  damned. 
Indeed,  no  others  are  damned  except  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  this 
act  of  preterition.  From  this,  therefore,  it  must  be  concluded,  that  sin 
necessarily  follows  from  the  decree  of  reprobation  or  preterition ;  be- 
cause, if  it  were  otherwise,  it  might  possibly  happen,  that  a  person  who 
had  been  passed  by  might  not  commit  sin,  and  from  that  circumstance 
might  not  become  liable  to  damnation.  This  second  opinion  on  predes- 
tination, therefore,  falls  into  the  same  inconvenience  as  the  first, — the 
making  God  the  author  of  sin."  {Declaration.) 

The  THIRD  opinion  is  sublapsarian  ;  in  which  man,  as  the  object  of 
predestination,  is  considered  as  fallen.  (7)  It  is  thus  epitomized  by  Ar- 
minius : — 

"  Because  God  willed  within  himself  from  all  eternity  to  make  a  de- 
cree by  which  he  might  elect  certain  men  and  reprobate  the  rest,  he 

(7)  The  question  as  to  the  object  of  the  decrees  has  gone  out,  as  Goodwin  says, 
among  our  Calvinistic  brethren  into  "endless  digladiations  and  irreconcilable 
divisions  : — some  of  them  hold,  that  men  simply  and  indefinitely  considered,  are 
the  object  of  these  decrees.  Others  contend,  that  men  considered  as  yet  to  be 
created,  are  this  object.  A  third  sort  stands  up  against  both  the  former  with 
this  notion,  that  men  considered  as  already  created,  and  made,  are  this  object. 
A  fourth  disparageth  the  conjectures  of  the  three  former  with  this  conceit,  that 
men  considered  as  fallen,  are  this  object.  Another  findeth  a  defect  in  the  single- 
ness or  simplicity  of  all  the  former  opinions,  and  compoundeth  this  in  opposition 
to  them,  that  men  considered  both  as  to  be  created,  and  as  being  created  and 
as  fallen,  together,  are  the  proper  object  of  these  troublesome  decrees.  A  sixth 
sort  formeth  us  yet  another  object,  and  this  is,  man  considered  as  salvable,  or  capa- 
ble of  being  saved.  A  seventh  not  liking  the  faint  complexion  of  any  of  the 
former  opinions,  delivereth  this  to  us  as  strong  and  healthful,  that  men  considered 
as  damnable,  are  this  object.  Others  yet  again,  superfancying  all  the  former,  con- 
ceit men,  considered  as  creable,  or  possible  to  be  created,  to  be  the  object  so 

2 


394  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

viewed  and  considered  the  human  race  not  only  as  created,  but  likewise 
as  fallen  or  corrupt ;  and,  on  that  account,  obnoxious  to  malediction. 
Out  of  this  lapsed  and  accursed  state  God  determined  to  liberate  certain 
individuals,  and  freely  to  save  them  by  his  grace,  for  a  declaration  of 
his  mercy  ;  but  he  resolved  in  his  own  just  judgment,  to  leave  the  rest 
under  malediction,  for  a  declaration  of  his  justice.  In  both  these  cases 
God  acts  without  the  least  consideration  of  repentance  and  faith  in  those 
whom  he  elects,  or  of  impenitence  and  unbehef  in  those  whom  he  repro- 
bates. This  opinion  places  the  fall  of  man,  not  as  a  means  foreordain- 
ed for  the  execution  of  the  decree  of  predestination,  as  before  explained ; 
but  as  something  that  might  furnish  a  proceresisy  or  occasion  for  this 
decree  of  predestination."  {Declaration.) 

With  this  opinion,  however,  the  necessity  of  the  fall  is  so  generally 
connected,  that  it  escapes  the  difficulties  which  environ  the  preceding 
scheme  in  words  only ;  for  whether,  in  the  decree  of  predestination,  man 
is  considered  as  creatable,  or  created  and  fallen,  if  a  necessity  be  laid 
upon  any  part  of  the  race  to  sin,  and  to  be  made  miserable,  whether 
from  that  which  rendered  the  fall  inevitable,  or  that  which  rendered  the 
fall  the  inevitable  means  of  corrupting  their  nature,  and  producing  entire 
moral  disability  without  relief,  the  condition  of  the  reprobate  remains 
substantially  the  same ;  and  the  administration  under  which  they  are 
placed,  is  equally  opposed  to  justice  as  to  grace.  For  let  us  shut  out 
all  these  fine  distinctions  between  acts  of  sovereignty  and  acts  of  justice, 
pretention  and  predamnation,  and  fully  allow  the  principle,  that  all  are 
fallen  in  Adam,  in  what  way  can  even  the  sublapsarian  doctrine  be  sup- 
ported ?  It  has  two  objects :  to  avoid  the  imputation  of  making  God 
the  author  of  sin,  and  to  repel  the  charge  of  his  dealing  with  his  crea- 
tures unjustly.  We  need  only  take  the  latter  as  necessary  to  the  argu- 
ment,  and  show  how  utterly  they  fail  to  turn  aside  this  most  fatal  objec- 
tion drawn  from  the  justice  of  the  Divine  nature  and  administration. 

It  is  an  easy  and  plausible  thing  to  say,  in  the  usual  loose  and  general 
manner  of  stating  the  sublapsarian  doctrine,  that  the  whole  race  having 
fallen  in  Adam,  and  become  justly  liable  to  eternal  death,  God  might, 
without  any  impeachment  of  his  justice,  in  the  exercise  of  his  sovereign 
grace,  appoint  some  to  life  and  salvation  by  Christ,  and  leave  the  others 
to  their  deserved  punishment.  But  this  is  a  false  view  of  the  case,  built 
upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  whole  race  were  personally  and  indi- 

highly  contested  about.  A  ninth  party  disciple  the  world  with  this  doctrine, 
that  men  considered  as  labiles,  or  capable  of  falling,  are  the  object ;  and  whether 
all  the  scattered  and  conflicting  opinions  about  the  objects  of  our  brethren's 
decrees  of  election  and  reprobation,  are  bound  up  in  this  bundle  or  not,  we  can- 
not say."  {Agreement  of  Brethren,  ^c.) 

In  modern  times  these  subtile  distinctions  have  rather  fallen  into  desuetude 
among  Calvinists,  and  are  reducible  to  a  much  smaller  number. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  395 

vidually,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall,  absolutely  liable  to  eternal  death. 
That  very  fact  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  whole  scheme,  is  easy  to 
be  refuted  on  the  clearest  authority  of  Scripture  ;  while  not  a  passage 
can  be  adduced,  we  may  boldly  affirm,  which  sanctions  any  such  doc- 
trine. 

"  The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  That  the  death  which  is  the  wages  or 
penalty  of  sin  extends  to  eternal  death,  we  have  before  proved.  But 
"  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law ;"  and  in  no  other  light  is  it  repre- 
sented  in  Scripture,  when  eternal  death  is  threatened  as  its  penalty,  than 
as  the  act  of  a  rational  being  sinning  against  a  law  known  or  knowable  ; 
and  as  an  act  avoidable,  and  not  forced  or  necessary. 

Taking  these  principles,  let  them  be  applied  to  the  case  before  us. 

The  scheme  of  predestination  in  question  contemplates  the  human 
race  as  fallen  in  Adam.  It  must,  therefore,  contemplate  them  either 
as  seminally  in  Adam,  not  being  yet  bom ;  or  as  to  be  actually  bom 
into  the  world. 

In  the  former  case,  the  only  actual  beings  to  be  charged  with  sin, 
"  the  transgression  of  the  law,"  were  Adam  and  Eve ;  for  the  rest  of  the 
human  race  not  being  actually  existent,  were  not  capable  of  transgress- 
ing ;  or  if  they  were,  in  a  vague  sense,  capable  of  it  by  virtue  of  the 
federal  character  of  Adam  ;  yet  then  only  as  potential,  and  not  as  actual 
beings,  beings,  as  the  logicians  say,  in  posse,  not  in  esse.  Our  first  parents 
rendered  themselves  liable  to  eternal  death.  This  is  granted ;  and  had 
they  died  "  in  the  day"  they  sinned,  which,  but  for  the  introduction  of 
a  system  of  mercy  and  long  suffering,  and  the  appointment  of  a  new  kind 
of  probation,  for  any  thing  that  appears,  they  must  have  done,  the  human 
race  would  have  perished  with  them,  and  the  only  conscious  sinners 
would  have  been  the  only  conscious  sufferers.  But  then  this  lays  no 
foundation  for  election  and  reprobation ; — the  whole  race  would  thus 
have  perished  without  the  vouch safement  of  mercy  to  any. 

This  predestination  must,  therefore,  respect  the  human  race  fallen  in 
Adam,  as  to  be  born  actually,  and  to  have  a  real  as  well  as  a  potential 
existence ;  and  the  doctrine  will  be,  that  the  race  so  contemplated  were 
made  unconditionally  liable  to  eternal  death.  In  this  case  the  decree 
takes  effect  immediately  upon  the  fall,  and  determines  the  condition  of 
every  individual,  in  respect  to  his  being  elected  from  this  common  misery, 
or  his  being  left  in  it ;  and  it  rests  its  plea  of  justice  upon  the  assumed 
fact,  that  every  man  is  absolutely  liable  to  eternal  death  wholly  and  en- 
tirely for  the  sin  of  Adam,  a  sin  to  which  he  Was  not  a  consenting  party, 
because  he  was  not  in  actual  existence.  But  if  eternal  death  be  the 
"  wages  of  sin ;"  and  the  sin  which  receives  such  wages  be  the  trans- 
gression  of  a  law  by  a  voluntary  agent,  (and  this  is  the  rule  as  laid  down 
by  God  himself,)  then  on  no  Scriptural  principle  is  the  human  race  to  be 
considered  absolutely  liable  to  personal  and  conscious  eternal  death  for 

2 


396  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  sin  of  Adam ;  and  so  the  very  ground  assumed  by  the  advocates  of 
this  theory  is  unfounded. 

But  perhaps  they  will  bring  into  consideration  the  foreknowledge  of 
actual  transgression  as  contemplated  by  the  decree,  though  this  notion 
is  repudiated  by  Calvin,  and  the  rigid  divines  of  his  school ;  but  we 
reply  to  this,  that  either  the  sin  of  Adam  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  the 
actual  infliction  of  a  sentence  of  eternal  death  upon  his  descendants,  or 
it  was  not.  If  not,  then  no  man  will  be  punished  with  eternal  death,  as 
the  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  and  that  sentence  will  rest  upon  actual 
transgressions  alone.  If,  then,  this  be  allowed,  there  comes  in  an  im- 
portant inquiry :  Are  the  actual  transgressions  of  the  non-elect  evitable, 
or  necessary  ?  If  the  former,  then  even  the  reprobate,  without  the  grace 
of  Christ,  which  they  cannot  have,  because  he  died  not  for  them,  may 
avoid  all  sin,  and  consequently  keep  the  whole  law  of  God,  and  claim, 
though  still  reprobates,  to  be  justified  by  their  works.  But  if  sin  be  una- 
voidable and  necessary  as  to  them,  in  consequence  both  of  the  corrupt 
nature  they  have  derived  from  Adam,  and  the  withholding  of  that  sancti- 
fying influence  which  can  be  imparted  only  to  the  elect,  for  whom  alone 
Christ  died,  how  are  they  to  be  proved  justly  liable,  on  that  account,  to 
eternal  death  ?  This  is  the  penalty  of  sin,  of  sin  as  the  transgression 
of  the  law ;  but  then  law  is  given  only  to  creatures  in  a  state  of  trial, 
either  to  those  who,  from  their  unimpaired  powers,  are  able  to  keep  it ; 
or  to  those  to  whom  is  made  the  promise  of  gracious  assistance,  upon 
their  asking  it,  in  order  that  they  may  be  enabled  to  obey  the  will  of 
God ;  and  in  no  case  are  those  to  whom  God  issues  his  commands  sup- 
posed in  Scripture  to  be  absolutely  incapable  of  obedience,  much  less 
liable  to  be  punished,  without  remedy,  for  not  obeying,  if  so  incapacitated. 
This  would,  indeed,  make  the  Divine  Being  a  hard  master,  "  reaping 
where  he  has  not  sown  ;"  which  is  the  language  only  of  the  "  wicked 
servant ;"  and  therefore  to  be  abhorred  by  all  good  men.  But  if  a  point 
so  obviously  at  variance  with  truth  and  equity  be  maintained,  the  doc- 
trine comes  to  this,  that  men  are  considered,  in  the  Divine  decree,  as 
justly  liable  to  eternal  death,  (their  actual  sins  being  foreseen,)  because 
they  have  been  placed  by  some  previous  decree,  or  higher  branch  of  the 
same  decree,  in  circumstances  which  necessitate  them  to  sin :  a  doc- 
trine which  raises  sublapsarianism  into  supralapsarianism  itself.  This 
is  not  the  view  which  God  gives  us  of  his  own  justice  ;  and  it  is  contra- 
dicted by  every  notion  of  justice  which  has  ever  obtained  among  men : 
nor  is  it  at  all  relieved  by  the  subtilty  of  Zanchius  and  others,  who  dis- 
tinguish between  being  necessitated  to  sin,  and  hemg  forced  to  sin  ;  and 
argue,  that  because  in  sinning  the  reprobate  follow  the  motions  of  their 
own  will,  they  are  justly  punishable  ;  though  in  this  they  fulfil  the  pre- 
destination of  God.  The  true  question  is,  and  it  is  not  at  all  afl?ected 
by  such  merely  verbal  distinctions,  Can  the  reprobate   do   otherwise 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  397 

than  sin,  and  could  they  ever  do  otherwise  ?  They  sin  willingly^  it  is 
said.  This  is  granted  ;  but  could  they  ever  will  otherwise  ?  The  will 
is  but  one  of  many  diseased  powers  of  the  soul.  Is  there,  as  to  them, 
any  cure  for  this  disease  of  the  will  ?  According  to  this  scheme,  there 
is  not ;  and  they  will  from  necessity,  as  well  as  act  from  necessity  ;  so 
that  the  difficulty,  though  thrown  a  step  backward,  remains  in  full 
force. 

In  support  of  their  notion,  that  the  penalty  attached  to  original  sin  is 
eternal  death,  they  allege,  it  is  true,  that  the  Apostle  Paul  represents  all 
men  under  condemnation  in  consequence  of  their  connection  with  the 
first  Adam ;  and  attributes  the  salvation  of  those  who  are  rescued  from 
the  ruin,  only  to  the  obedience  of  the  second  Adam.  This  is  granted  ; 
but  it  will  not  avail  to  establish  their  position,  that  the  human  race  being 
all  under  an  absolute  sentence  of  condemnation  to  eternal  death,  almighty 
God,  in  the  exercise  of  his  sovereign  grace,  elected  a  part  of  them  to 
salvation,  and  left  the  remainder  to  the  justice  of  their  previous  sentence. 

For,  1.  Supposing  that  the  whole  human  race  were  under  condem- 
nation in  their  sense,  this  will  not  account  for  the  punishment  of  those 
who  reject  the  Gospel.  Their  rejecting  the  Gospel  is  represented  in 
Scripture  as  the  sole  cause  of  their  condemnation ,  and  never  merely  as 
an  aggravating  cause,  as  though  they  were  under  an  irreversible  pre- 
vious  sentence  of  death,  and  that  this  refusal  of  the  Gospel  only  height- 
ened a  previously  certain  and  inevitable  punishment.  An  aggravated 
cause  of  condemnation  it  is ;  but  for  this  reason,  that  it  is  the  rejection 
of  a  remedy,  and  an  abuse  of  mercy,  neither  of  which  could  have  any 
place  in  a  previously  fixed  condition  of  reprobation.  If,  therefore,  it  is 
true  that  "  this  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world, 
and  men  love  darkness  rather  than  fight,"  we  must  conclude,  that  the 
previous  state  of  condemnation  was  not  irremediable  and  unalterable,  or 
this  circumstance,  the  rejection  "  of  the  light,"  or  revelation  of  mercy  in 
the  Gospel,  could  not  be  their  condemnation. 

2.  Leaving  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  Rom.  v,  out  of  our  consi- 
deration for  a  moment,  the  Scriptures  never  place  the  final  condemna- 
tion of  men  upon  the  ground  of  Adam's  offence,  and  their  connection; 
with  him.  Actual  sin  forms  the  ground  of  every  reproving  charge ;. 
of  every  commination ;  and,  beyond  all  doubt,  of  the  condemnatory  sen- 
tence at  the  day  of  judgment.  To  what  ought  we  to  refer,  as  explain- 
ing the  true  cause  of  the  eternal  punishment  of  any  portion  of  our  race, 
but  to  the  proceedings  of  that  day,  when  that  eternal  punishment  is  ta 
be  awarded  ?  Of  the  reason  of  this  proceeding,  of  the  facts  to  be  charged, 
and  of  the  sins  to  be  punished,  we  have  very  copious  information  in  the 
Scriptures  ;  but  these  are  evil  works,  and  disbelief  of  tJie  Gospel.  No- 
where is  it  SEiid,  or  even  hinted  in  the  most  distant  manner,  that  men  will 
be  sentenced  to  eternal  death,  at  that  day,  either  because  of  Adam's  sin^ 


398  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

or  because  their  connection  with  Adam  made  them  inevitably  corrupt 
in  nature,  and  unholy  in  conduct ;  from  which  effects  they  could  not 
escape,  because  God  had  from  eternity  resolved  to  deny  them  the  grace 
necessary  to  this  end. 

3.  The  true  view  of  the  apostle's  doctrine  in  Rom.  v,  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained, not  by  making  partial  extracts  from  his  discourse  ;  but  by  taking 
the  argument  entire,  and  in  all  its  parts. 

The  Calvinists  assume,  that  the  apostle  represents  what  the  penal 
condition  of  the  human  race  would  have  been  had  not  Christ  interposed 
as  our  Redeemer.  Here  is  one  of  their  great  and  leading  mistakes ; 
for  St.  Paul  does  not  touch  this  point.  The  Calvinist  assumes,  that  the 
whole  race  of  men,  but  for  the  decree  of  election,  would  not  only  have 
come  into  actual  being,  but  have  been  actually  and  individually  punished 
for  ever ;  and,  on  this  assumption,  endeavours  to  justify  his  doctrine  of 
the  arbitrary  selection  of  a  part  of  mankind  to  grace  and  salvation,  the 
other  being  left  in  the  state  in  which  they  were  found.  Even  this  is 
contrary  to  other  parts  of  their  own  system ;  for  the  reprobate  are  placed 
in  an  infinitely  worse  condition  than  had  they  been  merely  thus  left  with- 
out a  share  in  Christ's  redemption ;  because,  even  according  to  Calvin- 
istic  interpreters  their  condemnation  is  fearfully  aggravated ;  and  by 
that  which  they  have  no  means  of  avoiding,  by  actual  sin  and  unbelief. 
But  the  assumption  itself  is  wholly  imaginary.  For  the  apostle  speaks 
not  of  what  the  human  race  would  have  been,  that  is,  he  affirms  nothing 
as  to  their  penal  condition,  in  case  Christ  had  not  undertaken  the  office 
of  Redeemer ;  but  he  looks  at  their  moral  state  and  penal  condition,  as 
the  case  actually  stands  :  in  other  words,  he  takes  the  state  of  man  as  it 
was  actually  established  after  the  fall,  as  recorded  in  the  book  of  Gene- 
sis. No  child  of  Adam  was  actually  born  into  the  world  until  the  pro- 
mise of  a  Redeemer  had  been  given,  and  the  virtue  of  his  anticipated 
redemption  had  begun  to  apply  itself  to  the  case  of  the  fallen  pair ;  con- 
sequently, all  mankind  are  born  under  a  constitution  of  mercy,  which 
actually  existed  before  their  birth.  What  the  race  would  have  been, 
had  not  the  redeeming  plan  been  brought  in,  the  Scriptures  nowhere  tell 
us,  except  that  a  sentence  of  death  to  be  executed  "  in  the  day"  in  which 
the  first  pair  sinned,  was  the  sanction  of  the  law  under  which  they  were 
placed ;  and  it  is  great  presumption  to  assume  it  as  a  truth,  that  they 
would  have  multiplied  their  species  only  for  eternal  destruction.  That 
the  race  would  have  been  propagated  under  an  absolute  necessity  of 
sinning,  and  of  being  made  eternally  miserable,  we  may  boldly  affirm  to 
be  impossible ;  because  it  supposes  an  administration  contradicted  by 
every  attribute  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  God.  What  the  actual 
state  of  the  human  race  is,  in  consequence  both  of  the  fall  of  Adam  and 
of  the  interposition  of  Christ ;  of  the  imputation  of  the  effects  of  the 
offence  of  the  one,  and  of  the  obedience  of  the  other ;  is  the  only  point 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  399 

to  which  our  inquiries  can  go,  and  to  which,  indeed,  the  argument  of  the 
apostle  is  confined. 

There  is,  it  is  true,  an  imputation  of  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin 
to  his  posterity,  independent  of  their  personal  oifences  ;  but  we  can  only 
ascertain  what  these  consequences  are  by  referring  to  the  apostle  him- 
self. One  of  these  consequences  is  asserted  explicitly,  and  others  are 
necessarily  implied  in  this  chapter  and  in  other  parts  of  his  writings. 
That  which  is  here  explicitly  asserted  is,  that  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  though  they  have  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression, that  is,  not  personally ;  and  therefore  this  death  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  result  of  Adam's  transgression  alone,  and  of  our  having 
been  so  far  "  constituted  sinners"  in  him,  as  to  be  liable  to  it.  But  then 
the  death  of  which  he  here  speaks,  is  the  death  of  the  body ;  for  his 
argument,  that  "  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,"  obliges  us  to 
understand  him  as  speaking  of  the  visible  and  known  fact,  that  men  in 
those  ages  died  as  to  the  body,  since  he  could  not  intend  to  say  that  all 
the  generations  of  men,  from  Adam  to  Moses,  died  eternally.  The 
death  of  the  body,  then,  is  the  first  effect  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  to  his  descendants,  as  stated  in  this  chapter.  A  second  is  neces- 
sarily impUed ;  a  state  of  spiritual  death, — the  being  born  into  the  world 
with  a  corrupt  nature,  always  tending  to  actual  offence.  This  is  known 
to  be  the  apostle's  opinion,  from  other  parts  of  his  writings ;  but  that 
passage  in  this  chapter  in  which  it  is  necessarily  implied,  is  verse  16  : 
"  The  free  gift  is  oimany  offences  unto  justification."  If  men  need  jus- 
tification of  "  many  offences;"  if  all  men  need  this,  and  that  under  a 
dispensation  of  help  and  spiritual  healing ;  then  the  nature  which  uni- 
versally leads  to  offences  so  numerous  must  be  inherently  and  univer- 
sally corrupt.  A  third  consequence  is  a  conditional  liabiUty  to  eternal 
death ;  for  that  state  which  makes  us  Uable  to  actual  sin,  makes  us  also 
liable  to  actual  punishment.  But  this  is  conditional,  not  absolute  ;  for 
since  the  apostle  makes  the  obedience  of  Christ  available  to  the  forgive- 
ness of  the  "  many  offences"  we  may  commit  in  consequence  of  the 
corrupt  nature  we  have  derived  from  Adam,  and  extends  this  to  all  men, 
they  can  only  perish  by  their  own  fault.  Now  beyond  these  three 
effects  we  do  not  find  that  the  apostle  carries  the  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin.  Of  unpardoned  "  offences"  eternal  death  is  the  consequence  ;  but 
these  are  personal.  Of  the  sin  of  Adam,  imputed,  these  are  the  conse- 
quences,— the  death  of  the  body, — and  our  introduction  into  the  world 
with  a  nature  tending  to  actual  offences,  and  a  conditional  liability  to 
punishment.  But  both  are  connected  with  a  remedy  as  extensive  as  the 
disease.  For  the  first,  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ;  for  the  other, 
the  healing  of  grace  and  the  promise  of  pardon,  and  thus  though  "  con- 
demnation" has  passed  upon  "  all  men,'^  yet  the  free  gift  unto  justifica- 
tion  of  Ufe  passes  upon  "  all  merC  also, — the  same  general  terms  being 

2 


400  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

used  by  the  apostle  in  each  case.  The  effects  of  "  the  free  gift"  are  not 
immediate ;  the  reign  of  death  remains  till  the  resurrection ;  but  "  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive,"  and  it  is  every  man's  own  fault,  not  his 
fate,  if  his  resurrection  be  not  a  happy  one.  The  corrupt  nature 
remains  till  the  healing  is  applied  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  but  it  is  pro- 
vided, and  is  actually  applied  in  the  case  of  all  those  dying  in  infancy, 
as  we  have  already  showed ;  {See  chapter  xviii,  p.  3 ;)  while  justification 
and  regeneration  are  offered,  through  specified  means  and  conditions,  to 
all  who  are  of  the  age  of  reason  and  choice,  and  thus  the  sentence  of 
eternal  death  may  be  reversed.  What  then  becomes  of  the  premises  in 
the  sublapsarian  theory  which  we  have  been  examining,  that  in  Adam 
all  men  are  absolutely  condemned  to  eternal  death  ?  Had  Christ  not 
undertaken  human  redemption,  we  have  no  proof,  no  indication  in  Scrip- 
ture, that  for  Adam's  sin  any  but  the  actually  guilty  pair  would  have 
been  doomed  to  this  condemnation ;  and  though  now  the  race  having 
become  actually  existent,  is  for  this  sin,  and  for  the  demonstration  of 
God's  hatred  of  sin  in  general,  involved,  through  a  federal  relation  and 
by  an  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  in  the  effects  above  mentioned ;  yet  a 
universal  remedy  is  provided. 

But  we  are  not  to  be  confined  even  to  this  view  of  the  grace  of  God, 
when  we  speak  of  actual  offences.  Here  the  case  is  even  strengthened. 
The  redemption  of  Christ  extends  not  merely  to  the  removal  of  the 
evils  laid  upon  us  by  the  imputation  of  Adam's  transgression ;  but  to 
those  which  are  the  effects  of  our  own  personal  choice — to  the  forgive- 
ness of  "  many  offences,"  upon  our  repentance  and  faith,  however 
numerous  and  aggravated  they  may  be ; — to  the  bestowing  of  "  abun- 
dance of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness  ;" — and  not  merely  to 
the  reversal  of  the  sentence  of  death,  but  to  our  "  reigning  in  life  by 
Jesus  Christ :"  so  that  "  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more 
abound  ;  that  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign 
through  righteousness,  unto  eternal  life ;" — which  phrase,  in  the  New 
Testament,  does  never  mean  less  than  the  glorification  of  the  bodies  and 
souls  of  believers  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  in  the  presence  and  enjoy- 
ment of  the  eternal  glory  of  Christ. 

So  utterly  without  foundation  is  the  leading  assumption  in  the  sublap- 
sarian scheme,  that  the  decree  of  election  and  reprobation  finds  the 
human  race  in  a  state  of  common  and  absolute  liability  to  personal 
eternal  punishment ;  and  that  by  making  a  sovereign  selection  of  a  part 
of  mankind,  God  does  no  injustice  to  the  rest  by  passing  them  by.  The 
word  of  God  asserts  no  such  doctrine  as  the  absolute  condemnation  of 
the  race  to  eternal  death,  merely  for  Adam's  offence  ;  and  if  it  did,  the 
merciful  result  of  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  declared  to  be  not  only  as 
extensive  as  the  evil,  in  respect  of  the  number  of  persons  so  involved ; 
but  in  "  grace"  to  be  more  abounding.  Finally,  this  assumption  falls 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  401 

short  of  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  made  ;  because  the  mere  "  passing 
by"  of  a  part  of  the  race,  already,  according  to  them,  under  eternal 
condemnation,  and  which  they  contend  inflicts  no  injustice  upon  them, 
does  not  account  for  their  additional  and  aggravated  punishment  for 
doing  what  they  had  never  the  natural  or  dispensed  power  of  avoiding, 
— breaking  God's  holy  laws,  and  rejecting  his  Gospel.  Upon  a  close 
examination  of  the  sublapsarian  scheme,  it  will  be  found,  therefore,  to 
involve  all  the  leading  difficulties  of  the  Calvinistic  theory  as  it  is  broadly 
exhibited  by  Calvin  himself.  In  both  cases  reprobation  is  grounded  on 
an  act  of  mere  will,  resting  on  no  reason :  it  respects  not  in  either,  as 
its  primary  cause,  the  demerit  of  the  creature  ;  and  it  punishes  eternally 
without  personal  guilt,  arising  either  from  actual  sin,  or  from  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Gospel.  Both  unite  in  making  sin  a  necessary  result  of  the 
circumstances  in  which  God  has  placed  a  great  part  of  mankind,  which, 
by  no  effort  of  theirs,  can  be  avoided ;  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  which 
they  shall  never  be  disposed  to  avoid  ;  and  how  either  of  these  schemes, 
in  strict  consequence,  can  escape  the  charge  of  making  God  the  author 
of  sin,  which  the  synod  of  Dort  acknowledges  to  be  "  blasphemy,"  is 
inconceivable.  For  how  does  it  alter  the  case  of  the  reprobate,  whe- 
ther the  fall  of  Adam  himself  was  necessitated,  or  whether  he  acted 
freely  ?  They,  at  least,  are  necessitated  to  sin ;  they  come  into  the 
world  under  a  necessitating  constitution,  which  is  the  result  of  an  act  to 
which  they  gave  no  consent ;  and  their  case  differs  nothing,  except  iii 
circumstances  which  do  not  alter  its  essential  character,  from  that  of 
beings  immediately  created  by  God  with  a  nature  necessarily  producing 
sinful  acts,  and  to  counteract  which  there  is  no  remedy : — a  case  which 
few  have  been  bold  enough  to  suppose. 

The  different  views  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  as  stated  above, 
greatly  agitated  the  Protestant  world,  from  the  time  of  Calvin  to  the 
sitting  of  the  celebrated  synod  of  Dort,  whose  decisions  on  this  point, 
having  been  received  as  a  standard  by  several  Churches  and  by  many 
theologians,  may  next  be  properly  introduced ;  although,  after  what  has 
been  said,  they  call  only  for  brief  remark. 

"  The  Judgment  of  the  synod  of  the  Reformed  Belgic  Churches,"  to 
which  many  divines  of  note  of  other  Reformed  Churches  were  admitted, 
*'  on  the  articles  controverted  in  the  Belgic  Churches,"  was  drawn  up  in 
Latin,  and  read  in  the  great  church  at  Dort,  in  the  year  1619 ;  and  a 
translation  into  English  of  this  «  Judgment,"  with  the  synod's  "  Rejec- 
tion of  Errors,"  was  published  in  the  same  year.  {London,  'printed  by 
John  Bill.)  This  translation  having  become  scarce,  or  not  being  known 
to  Mr.  Scott,  he  pubhshed  a  new  translation  in  1818,  from  which,  as 
being  in  more  modern  English,  and,  as  far  as  I  have  compared  it,  unex- 
ceptionably  faithful,  I  shall  take  the  extracts  necessary  to  exhibit  the 
synod's  decision  on  the  point  before  us. 
Vol.  II.  26 


402  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Art*  1 .  "  As  all  men  have  sinned  in  Adam,  and  have  become  exposed 
to  the  curse  and  eternal  death,  God  would  have  done  no  injustice  to  any 
one,  if  he  had  determined  to  leave  the  whole  human  race  under  sin  and 
the  curse,  and  to  condemn  them  on  account  of  sin ;  according  to  the 
words  of  the  apostle,  *  all  the  world  is  become  guilty  before  God,'  Rom. 
iii,  19.  'AH  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God,'  23  ; 
and  '  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,'  Rom.  vi,  23." 

The  synod  here  assumes  that  all  men,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, 
have  become  exposed  to  the  curse  of  "  eternal  death  ;"  and  they  quote 
passages  to  prove  it,  which  manifestly  prove  nothing  to  the  point.  The 
two  first  speak  of  actual  sin  ;  the  third,  of  the  wages,  or  penalty  of 
actual  sin,  as  the  context  of  each  will  show.  The  very  texts  adduced, 
show  how  totally  at  a  loss  the  synod  was  for  any  thing  hke  Scriptural 
evidence  of  this  strange  doctrine ;  which,  however,  as  we  have  seen, 
would  not,  if  true,  help  them  through  their  difficulties,  seeing  it  leaves 
the  punishment  of  the  reprobate  for  actual  sin  and  for  disbehef  of  the 
Gospel,  still  unaccounted  for  on  every  principle  of  justice. 

Art.  4.  "  They  who  believe  not  the  Gospel,  on  them  the  wrath  of 
God  remaineth  ;  but  those  who  receive  it,  and  embrace  the  Saviour  Jesus 
with  a  true  and  living  faith,  are,  through  him,  delivered  from  the  wrath 
of  God,  and  receive  the  gift  of  everlasting  hfe." 

To  this  there  is  nothing  to  object ;  only  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
those  who  are  not  elected  to  eternal  hfe  out  of  the  common  mass,  are 
not,  according  to  this  article,  merely  left  and  passed  by  ;  but  are 
brought  under  an  obligation  of  believing  the  Gospel,  which,  neverthe- 
less, is  no  "  good  news"  to  them,  and  in  which  they  have  no  interest  at 
all ;  and  yet,  in  default  of  beUeving,  "  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  upon 
them."  Thus  there  is,  in  fact,  no  alternative  for  them.  They  cannot 
believe,  or  else  it  would  follow  that  those  reprobated  might  be  saved ; 
and,  therefore,  the  wrath  of  God  "  abideth  upon  them,"  for  no  fault  of 
their  own.     This,  however,  the  next  article  denies. 

Art.  5.  "  The  cause  or  fault  of  this  unbelief,  as  also  of  all  other  sins, 
is  by  no  means  in  God ;  but  in  man.  But  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 
and  salvation  by  him,  is  the  free  gift  of  Gop,  *  By  grace  are  ye 
saved  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God,' 
Eph.  ii,  8.  In  like  manner,  '  it  is  given  to  you  to  believe  in  Christ,' 
Phil,  i,  29." 

These  passages  would  be  singular  proofs  that  the  fault  of  unbelief  is 
in  men  themselves,  did  not  the  next  article  explain  the  connection  be- 
tween them  and  the  premises  in  the  mmds  of  the  synodists.  A  much 
more  appropriate  text,  but  a  rather  difficult  one  on  their  theory,  would 
have  been,  "  ye  have  not,  because  ye  ask  not." 

Art.  6.  "  That  some,  in  time,  have  faith  given  them  by  God,  and 
others  have  it  not  given,  proceeds  from  his  eternal  decree  ;  for  '  known 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  403 

unto  God  are  all  his  works  from  the  beginning  of  th^  iwrldj^  Acts  jiv, 
18.  According  to  which  decree,  he  gradually  softens  the  hearts  of  the 
elect,  however  hard,  and  he  bends  them  to  believe ;  but  the  non-elect 
he  leaves,  iji  just  judgment^  to  their  own  perversity  and  hardness. — 
And  here,  especially,  a  deep  discrimination,  at  the  same  time  both 
merciful  and  just ;  a  discrimination  of  men  equally  lost,  opens  itself  to 
us ;  or  that  decree  of  election  and  reprobation  which  is  revealed  in  the 
word  of  God  ;  which  as  perverse,  impure,  and  unstable  persons  do  wrest 
to  their  own  destruction,  so  it  affords  ineffable  consolation  to  holy  and 
pious  souls." 

To  this  article  the  synod  appends  no  Scripture  proofs }  which  if  the 
doctrines  it  contains  were,  as  the  synodists  say,  "  revealed  in  the  word  of 
God,"  would  not  have  been  wanting.  The  passage  which  stands  in  the 
middle  of  the  article  could  scarcely  be  intended  as  a  proof,  since  it 
would  equally  apply  to  any  other  doctrine  which  does  not  shut  out  the 
prescience  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  the  two  articles  just  quoted,  will 
be  seen  by  taking  them  together.  The  position  laid  down  is,  that  "  the 
faiilf^  of  not  believing  the  Gospel  is  "  hi  7na/i."  The  alleged  proof  of 
this  is,  that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God.  But  this  only  proves  that  the  fault 
of  not  believing  i&  in  man,  just  as  it  allows  that  God,  the  giver  of  faith, 
is  willing  to  give  faith  to  those  who  have  it  not,  and  that  they  will  not 
receive  it.  In  no  other  way  can  it  prove  the  faultintas  of  man  ;  for  to 
what  end  are  we  taught  that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  in  order  to  prove 
the  fault  of  not  believing  to  be  in  man,  if  God  will  not  bestow  the  gift, 
and  if  man  cannot  beUeve  without  such  bestowment  ?  This,  however, 
is  precisely  what  the  synod  teaches.  It  argues,  that  faith  is  the  gift 
of  God ;  that  it  is  only  given  to  "  some ,-"  and  that  this  proceeds  from 
God's  "  eternal  decree."  So  that,  by  virtue  of  this  decree,  he  gives 
faith  to  some,  and  withholds  it  from  others,  who  are,  thereupon,  lefl. 
vnthout  the  power  of  beUeving ;  and  for  this  act  of  God,  therefore,  and 
not  for  a  fault  cxf  their  own,  they  are  punished  eternally.  And  yet 
the  synod  calls  this  a  "  just  judgment ;  affording  ineffable  consolation 
to  holy  souls,"  and  a  "doctrine  only  rejected  by  the  perverse  and 
impure !" 

As  we  have  already  quoted  and  commented  on  the  7th  and  8th  arti- 
cles on  election,  we  proceed  to 

Art.  10.  «  Now  the  cause  of  this  gratuitous  election  is  the  sole  good 
pleasure  of  God  ;  not  consisting  in  this,  that  he  elected  into  the  condi- 
tion  of  salvation  certain  qualities  or  human  actions,  from  all  that  were 
possible ;  but  in  that,  out  of  the  common  multitude  of  sinners,  he  took 
to  himself  certain  persons  as  his  peculiar  property,  accordmg  to  the 
Scripture,  '  for  the  children  being  not  born,  neither  having  done  any 
good  or  evil,  &c,  it  is  said  (that  is  to  Rebecca)  the  elder  shall  serve 
the  younger  ;  even  as  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved ;  but  Esau  have 


404  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

1  hated,'  Rom  ix,  11-13.  *  And  as  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal 
life  believed,'  Acts  xiii,  48." 

Thus  the  ground  of  this  election  is  resolved  wholly  into  the  "  good 
pleasure  of  God,"  (est  solum  Dei  beneplacitum,)  «  having  no  respect,  as 
to  its  REASON,  or  CONDITION,  though  it  may  have  as  to  its  end,  to  any 
foreseen  faith,  obedience  of  faith,  or  any  other  good  quaUty  and  disposi- 
tion," as  it  is  expressed  in  the  preceding  article.  Let  us,  then,  see  how 
the  case  stands  with  the  reprobate. 

Art.  15.  "Moreover,  Holy  Scripture  doth  illustrate  and  commend  to 
us  this  eternal  and  free  grace  of  our  election,  in  this  more  especially, 
that  it  doth  also  testify  all  men  not  to  be  elected ;  but  that  some  are 
non-elect,  or  passed  by  in  the  eternal  election  of  God :  whom,  truly, 
God,  from  most  free,  just,  irreprehensible,  and  immutable  good  pleasure, 
decreed  to  leave  in  the  common  misery  into  which  they  had,  by  their  ovm 
fault,  cast  themselves,  and  not  to  bestow  on  them  living  faith,  and  the 
grax:e  of  conversion  ;  but  having  left  them  in  their  own  ways,  and  under 
just  judgment,  at  length,  not  only  on  account  of  their  unbeUef,  but  also 
of  all  their  other  sins,  to  condemn,  and  eternally  punish  them  for  the 
manifestation  of  his  own  justice.  And  this  is  the  decree  of  reprobation 
which  determines  that  God  is  in  no  wise  the  author  of  sin ;  (which,  to  be 
thought  of,  is  blasphemy  ;)  but  a  tremendous,  irreprehensible,  just  Judge 
and  avenger." 

Thus  we  hear  the  synodists  confessing,  in  the  same  breath  in  which 
they  plausibly  represent  reprobation  as  a  mere  passing  by  and  leaving 
men  "  in  the  common  misery,""  that  the  reprobate  are  punishable  for  their 
*'  unbelief  and  other  sins,"  and  so  this  decree  imports,  therefore,  much 
more  than  leaving  men  in  the  ^^ common  misery."  For  this  "common 
misery"  can  mean  no  more  than  the  misery  common  to  all  mankind  by  the 
sin  of  Adam,  into  which  his  fall  plunged  the  elect,  as  well  as  the  repro- 
bate ;  and  to  be  "  left"  in  it,  must  be  understood  of  being  left  to  the  sole 
consequences  of  that  offence.  Now,  were  it  even  to  be  conceded  that 
these  consequences  extend  to  personal  and  conscious  eternal  punishment, 
which  has  been  disproved ;  yet,  even  then,  their  decree  has  a  much 
more  formidable  aspect,  terrible  and  repulsive  as  this  alone  would  be. 
For  we  are  expressly  told,  that  God  not  only  "  decreed  to  leave  them  in 
this  misery,"  but  "  not  to  bestow  on  them  living  faith,  and  the  grace  of 
conversion  ;"  and  then  to  condemn,  and  eternally  punish  them,  "  on  ac- 
count of  their  unbehef,"  which  by  their  own  showing,  these  reprobates 
could  not  avoid ;  and  for  "all  their  other  sins,"  which  they  could  not  but 
commit,  since  it  was  "  decreed"  to  deny  to  them  "  the  grace  of  conver- 
sion." Thus  the  case  of  the  reprobate  is  deeply  aggravated,  beyond 
what  it  could  have  been  if  they  had  been  merely  "  left  in  the  common 
misery ;"  and  the  synod  and  its  followers  have,  therefore,  the  task  of 
showing,  how  the  punishing  of  men  for  what  they  never  could  avoid,  and 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  405 

which,  it  was  expressly  decreed  they  never  should  avoid,  "  is  a  mani. 
festation  of  the  justice"  of  almighty  God. 

From  the  above  extracts  it  will  be  seen  how  little  reason  Mr.  Scott 
had  to  reprove  Dr.  Heylin  with  '•'  bearing  false  witness  against  his 
neighbour,"  {Scott's  Translation  of  the  Articles  of  the  Synod  of  Dorty 
p.  120,)  on  account  of  having  given  a  summary  of  the  eighteen  articles 
of  the  synod,  on  predestination,  in  the  following  words  : — "  That  God, 
by  an  absolute  decree,  hath  elected  to  salvation  a  very  small  number 
of  men,  without  any  regard  to  their  faith  and  obedience  whatsoever ;  and 
secluded  from  saving  grace  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  appointed  them 
by  the  same  decree  to  eternal  damnation,  without  any  regard  to  their 
infidelity  and  impenitency."  Whether  Mr.  Scott  understood  this  con- 
troversy or  not.  Dr.  Heylin  shows,  by  this  summary,  that  he  neither 
misapprehended  it,  nor  bore  "  false  witness  against  his  neighbour,"  in 
so  stating  it;  for  as  to  the  stir  made  about  his  rendering  ^'multitudo"  a 
very  small  number,  this  verbal  inaccuracy  affects  not  the  merits  of  the 
doctrine ;  and  neither  the  synodists,  nor  any  of  their  followers,  ever 
allowed  the  elect  to  be  a  very  great  number.  The  number,  less  or 
more,  alters  not  the  doctrine.  With  respect  to  the  elect,  the  synod 
confesses,  that  the  decree  of  election  has  no  regard,  as  a  cause,  to  faith 
and  obedience  foreseen  in  the  persons  so  elected ;  and  with  respect  to 
the  reprobate,  although  it  is  not  so  explicit  in  asserting  that  the  decree 
of  reprobation  has  no  regard  to  their  infidelity  and  impenitency,  the 
foregoing  extracts  cannot  possibly  be  interpreted  into  any  other  mean- 
ing. For  it  is  manifestly  in  vain  for  the  synodists  to  attempt,  in  the 
15th  article,  to  gloss  over  the  doctrine,  by  saying  that  men  "  cast  them- 
sevles  into  the  common  misery  by  their  own  fault"  when  they  only  mean 
that  they  were  cast  into  it  by  Adam  and  by  his  fault.  If  they  intended 
to  ground  their  decree  of  reprobation  on  foresight  of  the  personal  offences 
of  the  reprobate,  they  would  have  said  this  in  so  many  words ;  but  the 
materials  of  which  the  synod  was  composed  forbade  such  a  declaration  ; 
and  they  themselves,  in  the  "  Rejection  of  Errors,"  appended  to  their 
chapter  "  De  divina  Pr<^destinatione"  place  in  this  list  "  the  errors  of 
those  who  teach  that  God  has  not  decreed,  from  his  own  mere  just  wiUj 
to  leave  any  in  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  in  the  common  state  of  sin  and 
damnation,  or  to  pass  them  by  in  the  communication  of  grace  necessary 
to  faith  and  conversion  ;"  quoting  as  a  proof  of  this  dogma,  "  He  hath 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth," 
and  giving  no  intimation  that  they  understand  this  passage  in  any  other 
sense  than  Calvin  and  his  immediate  followers  have  uniformly  affixed  to 
it.  What  Dr.  Heylin  has  said  is  here,  then,  abundantly  established  ; 
for  if  the  decree  of  reprobation  is  to  be  referred  to  God's  "  mere  will," 
and  if  its  operation  is  to  leave  the  reprobate  "  in  the  fall  of  Adamy"  and 
"  to  pass  them  by  in  that  communication  of  grace  which  is  necessary  to 

2 


406  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

faith  and  conversion,"  the  decree  itself  is  that  which  prevents  both  peni- 
tence and  faith,  and  stands  upon  some  other  ground  than  the  personal 
infidehty  and  impenitency  of  the  reprobate,  and  cannot  have   "  any 
regard"  to  either,  except  as  a  part  of  its  own  dread  consequences :  a 
view  of  the  matter  which   the  supralapsarians  would  readily  admit. 
How  their  doctrine,  so  stated  by  themselves,  could  give  the  synod  any 
reason  to  complain,  as  they  do  in  their  conclusion,  that  they  were  slan- 
dered by  their  enemies  when  they  were  charged  with  teaching,  "  that 
God,  by  the  bare  and  mere  determination  of  his  will,  without  any 
respect  of  the  sin  of  any  man,  predestinated  and  created  the  greatest 
part  of  the  world  to  eternal  damnation,"  will  not  be  very  obvious ;  or 
why  they  should  startle  at  the  same  doctrine  in  one  dress  which  they 
themselves  have  but  clothed  in  another.     The  fact  is,  that  the  divisions 
in  the  synod  obhged  the  leading  members,  who  were  chiefly  stout  supra- 
lapsarians, to  qualify  their  doctrine  somewhat  in  words,  while  substan- 
tially it  remained  the  same ;    but  what  they  lost  by  giving  up  a  few 
words  in  one  place,  they  secured  by  retaining  them  in  another^  or  by 
resorting  to  subtilties  not  obvious  to  the  commonalty.      Of  this  subtilty, 
^he  apparent  disclaimer  just  quoted  is  in  proof.     When  they  seem  to 
deny  that  God  reprobates  without  any  respect  to  the  sin  of  any  man,  they 
may  mean  that  he  had  respect  to  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  to  sin  in  Adam  ; 
for  they  do  not  deny  that  they  reject  personal  sin  as  a  ground  of  repro- 
bation.    Even  when  they  appear  to  allow  that  God  had,  in  reprobation, 
respect  to  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  or  even  to  personal  trans- 
gression, they  never  confess  that  God  had  respect  to  sin,  in  either 
sense,  as  the  impulsive  or  meritorious  cause  of  reprobation.     But  the 
greatest  subtilty  remains  behind ;    for  the  synod  says  nothing,  in  this 
complaint  and  apparent  rejection  of  the  doctrine  charged  upon  them  by 
their  adversaries,  but  what  all  the  supralapsarian  divines  would  say. — 
These,  as  we  have  seen,  make  a  distinction  between  the  two  parts  of 
the  decree  of  reprobation, — preterition  and  predamnation,  the  latter 
of  which  must  always  have  respect  to  actual  sin ;  and  hence  arises 
their  distinction  between  "  destruction^^  and  "  damnation.''^     For  they 
say,  it  is  one  thing  to  predestinate  and  create  to  damnation,  and  another 
to  predestinate  and  create  to  destruction.     Damnation,  being  the  sen- 
tence of  a  judge,  must  be  passed  in  consideration  of  sin ;  but  destruc- 
tion may  be  the  act  of  a  sovereign,  and  so  inflicted  by  right  of  domi- 
nion. (8)     The  synod  would  haye  disallowed  something  substantial, 

(8)  *•  Non  Solent  enim  supralapsarii  dicere  Deum  quosdam  ad  aeternam  damna- 
tionem  creasse  et  praedestinasse  ;  eo  quod  damnatio  actum  judicialem  designet,  ac 
proinde  peccati  meritum  praesupponat ;  sed  malunt  uti  voce  exitii,  ad  quod  Deus, 
tanquam  absolutus  Dominus,  jus  habeat  creandi  et  destinandi  quoscunque  volu- 
erit."  {Curcell<2us  De  Jure  Dei,  &c,  cap.  x.  See  also  Bishop  Womack's  Calvin- 
istic  Cabinet,  &c,  p.  394.) 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  407 

had  they  denied  that  God  created  aiiy  man  to  destruction,  without 
respect  to  sin,  and  were  safe  enough  in  allowing  that  he  has  created 
none,  without  respect  to  sin,  unto  damnation.  But  among  the  errors 
on  predestination,  which  they  formally  "  reject,"  and  which  they 
place  under  nine  distinct  heads,  thus  attempting  to  guard  the  pure  and 
orthodox  doctrine  as  to  this  point  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left,  they 
are  careful  not  to  condemn  the  supralapsarian  doctrine,  or  to  place  even 
its  highest  branches  among  the  doctrines  disavowed. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  on  these  topics,  is  expressed 
in  the  answers  to  the  12th  and  13th  questions  of  its  large  catechism  : 
"  God's  decrees  are  the  wise,  free,  and  holy  acts  of  the  counsel  of  his 
will ;  whereby,  from  all  eternity,  he  hath,  for  his  own  glory,  unchangeably 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  in  time,  especially  concerning 
angels  and  men" — "  God,  by  an  eternal  and  immutable  decree,  out  of 
his  mere  love,  for  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace  to  be  manifested 
in  due  time,  hath  elected  some  angels  to  glory  ;  and,  in  Christ,  hath 
chosen  some  men  to  eternal  life  and  the  means  thereof;  and  also,  accord, 
ing  to  his  sovereign  power  and  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
(whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  favour  as  he  pleaseth,)  hath  passed 
by  and  foreordained  the  rest  to  dishonour  and  wrath,  to  be  for  their  sin 
inflicted,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  justice." 

In  this  general  view  there  appears  a  strict  conformity  to  the  opinions  of 
Calvin,  as  before  given.  All  things  are  the  subjects  of  decree  and  pre- 
ordination ;  election  and  reprobation  are  grounded  upon  the  mere  will  of 
God  ;  election  is  the  choosing  men,  not  only  to  salvation,  but  to  the  means 
of  salvation ;  from  which  the  reprobates  are  therefore  excluded,  as 
passed  by,  and  foreordained  to  wrath  ;  and  yet  though  the  "  means  of 
salvation"  are  never  put  within  their  reach,  this  wrath  is  inflicted  upon 
them  ^^for  their  sin ;"  and  to  the  praise  of  God's  justice !  The  Church 
of  Scotland  adopts,  also,  the  notion  that  decrees  of  election  and  repro- 
bation extend  to  angels  as  well  as  men ;  a  pretty  certain  proof  that  the 
framers  of  this  catechism  were  not  sublapsarians,  for  as  to  angels,  there 
could  be  no  election  out  of  a  "  common  misery ;"  and  with  Calvin,  there- 
fore, they  choose  to  refer  the  whole  to  the  arbitrary  pleasure  and  will  of 
God. — "  The  angels  who  stood  in  their  integrity,  Paul  calls  elect ;  if  their 
constancy  rested  on  the  Divine  pleasure,  the  defection  of  others  argues 
their  having  been  forsaken  :  (direlectos,)  a  fact,  for  which  no  other  cause 
can  be  assigned,  than  the  reprobation  hidden  in  the  secret  counsel  of 
God." 

The  ancient  Church  of  the  Vaudois,  in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont,  have 
ja  confession  of  faith,  bearing  date  A.  D.  1120;  and  which,  probably, 
transmits  the  opinions  of  much  more  ancient  times.  The  only  article 
which  bears  upon  the  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  drawn  up,  as  might 
be  expected  in  an  age  of  the  Church  when  it  was  received,  as  a  matter 

2 


4(03  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  PART 

almost  entirely  i^ndisputed,  that  Christ  died  for  the  salvation  of  the  whole 
world.  Art.  8.  "  Christ  is  our  hfe,  truth,  peace,  and  righteousness ; 
also  our  pastor,  advocate,  sacrifice,  and  priest,  who  died  for  the  salva- 
tion  of  all  those  that  believe,  and  is  risen  again  for  our  justification." 

The  Confession  of  Faith,  published  by  the  Churches  of  Piedmont  in 
J655,  bears  a  different  character.  In  the  year  1630,  a  plague  which 
was  introduced  from  France  into  these  valleys,  swept  off  all  the  minis- 
ters but  two,  and  with  thejn  ended  the  race  of  their  ancient  barbes,  or 
DEistors.  {See  ^^  Historical  Defence,  ^c,  of  the  Waldenses,"  by  Sim^s.) 
The  Vaudois  were  then  under  the  necessity  of  applying  to  the  reformed 
Churches  of  France  and  Geneva  for  a  supply  of  ministers;  and  with 
them  came  in  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  in  an  authorized  form.  It  was  thus 
embodied  in  the  Confession  of  1655.  Art.  11.  '*  God  saves  from  cor- 
ruption and  condemnation  those  whom  he  has  chosen  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  not  for  any  disposition,  faith,  or  hoHness,  that  he 
foresaw  in  them,  but  of  his  mere  mercy  in  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  :  passing 
by  all  the  rest,  according  to  the  irreprehensible  reason  of  his  free 
vriU  and  justice"  The  last  clause  is  expressed  in  the  very  words  of 
fJalvin. 

The  12th  article  in  the  Confession  of  the  French  Churches,  1558,  is, 
in  substance,  Calvinistic,  though  brief  and  guarded  in  expression.  "  We 
believe,  that  out  of  this  general  corruption  and  condemnation  in  which 
all  men  are  plunged,  God  doth  deliver  them  whom  he  hath,  in  his  eter- 
nal  and  unchangeable  counsel,  chosen  of  his  mere  goodness  and  mercy, 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  without  any  consideration  of  their  works, 
leaving  the  rest  in  their  sins,  and  damnable  estate,  that  he  may  show 
forth  in  them  his  justice,  as,  in  the  elect,  he  doth  most  illustriously 
declare  the  riches  of  his  mercy.  For  one  is  not  better  than  another, 
until  such  time  as  God  doth  make  the  difference,  according  to  his  un- 
changeable purpose  which  he  hath  determined  in  Jesus  Christ  before 
the  creation  of  the  world."  {QuickCs  "  Synodicon  in  Gallia  Reformata.") 
This  confession  was  drawn  up  by  Calvin  himself,  though  not  in  language 
so  strong  as  he  usually  employs  ;  which,  perhaps,  indicates  that  the  ma- 
jority of  the  French  pastors  were  inclined  to  the  sublapsarian  theory,  and 
did  not,  in  every  point,  coincide  with  their  great  master. 

The  Westminster  Confession  gives  the  sentiments  both  of  the  English 
Presbyterian  Churches,  and  the  Church  of  Scotland.  (9)  Chapter  iii 
treats  of  the  predestination. 

"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men 

(9)  The  title  of  it  is,  ♦'  The  Confession  of  Faith  agreed  upon  by  tlie  Assembly 
of  Divines  at  Westminster,  with  the  assistance  of  Commissioners  from  the 
Church  of  Scotland."  The  date  of  the  ordinance  for  convening  this  assembly  is 
1643.  The  Confession  was  approved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  thp  Church  of 
Scotland  in  1647. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  409 

and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained 
to  everlasting  death.  These  angels  and  men  thus  predestinated  and 
foreordained,  are  particularly,  and  unchangeably  designed;  and  their 
number  is  so  certain  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  either  be  increased  or 
diminished.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and 
immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  his  will, 
hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace 
and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  and  good  works,  or  perseverance 
in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature  as  conditions  or 
causes  moving  him  thereunto ;  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace. 
As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal 
and  most  free  purpose  of  his  ^vill,  foreordained  all  the  means  thereunto. 
Wherefore,  they  who  are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by 
Christ ;  are  effectually  called  unto  faith  in  Christ,  by  his  Spirit  working  in 
due  season ;  are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  kept  by  his  power, 
through  faith  unto  salvation  ;  neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ, 
effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect 
only.  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased,  according  to  the  unsearchable 
counsel  of  his  ovm  loUl,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he 
pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass 
by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  justice." 

Here  we  have  no  attempts  at  qualification  after  the  example  of  the 
synod  of  Dort ;  but  the  whole  is  conformed  to  the  higher  and  most  un- 
mitigated parts  of  the  Institutes  of  Calvin.  By  the  side  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Confession,  the  seventeenth  article  of  the  Church  of  England  must 
appear  exceedingly  moderate ;  and,  as  to  Calvinistic  predestination,  to 
say  the  least,  equivocal.  It  never  gave  satisfaction  to  the  followers  of 
Calvin,  who  had  put  his  stronger  impress  upon  the  Augustinism  which 
floated  in  the  minds  of  many  of  the  divines  of  the  reformation,  who  gene- 
rally, as  appears  from  the  earhest  Protestant  confessions  and  catechisms, 
(1)  thought  fit  to  recommend  that  either  these  points  should  not  be 
touched  at  all,  or  so  speak  of  them  as  to  admit  great  latitude  of  inter- 
pretation, and  that,  probably,  in  charitable  respect  to  the  varying  opinions 
of  the  theologians  and  Churches  of  the  day.  It  is  of  the  perfected  form 
of  Calvinism  that  Arminius  speaks,  when  he  says,  "  It  neither  agrees 

(1)  The  Augsburg  Confession  says,  "  Non  est  hie  opus  disputationibus  de 
prsedestinatione  et  siniilibus.  Nam  promissio  est  universalis  et  nihil  detrahit 
operibus,  sed  exsuscitat  ad  fidem  et  vere  bona  opera." — Act  20.  And  the  Saxon 
Confession  is  equally  indifferent  to  the  subject.  "Non  addimus  hie  quaestiones 
de  praedestinatione  seu  deelectione  ;  seddeducimus  omnes  lectores  ad  verbum  Dei, 
et  jubemus  ut  voluntatem  Dei  verbo  ipsius  diseant  sieut  jEternus  Pater  expressa 
voce  prsBcipit,  hmic  audite."  {Art.  de  Remiss.  Pecc.) 

2 


410  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

nor  corresponds  with  the  harmony  of  those  confessions  which  were  pub- 
Hshed  together  in  one  volume  at  Geneva,  in  the  name  of  the  reformed 
and  Protestant  Churches.  If  that  harmony  of  confessions  be  faithfully 
consulted,  it  will  appear,  that  many  of  them  do  not  speak  in  the  same 
mamier  concerning  predestination  ;  that  some  of  them  only  incidentally 
mention  it,  and  that  they  evidently  never  once  touch  upon  those 
heads  of  the  doctrine  which  are  now  in  great  repute,  and  particularly 
urged  in  the  preceding  scheme  of  predestination.  The  confessions  of 
Bohemia,  England,  and  Wirtemburg,  and  the  first  Helvetian  Confession, 
and  that  of  the  four  cities  of  Strasburgh,  Constance,  Memmingen,  and 
Lindau,  make  no  mention  of  this  predestination :  those  of  Basle  and 
Saxony  only  take  a  very  cursory  notice  of  it  in  three  words.  The 
Augustan  Confession  speaks  of  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  induce  the 
Genevan  editors  to  think  that  some  annotation  was  necessary  on  their 
part  to  give  us  a  previous  warning.  The  last  of  the  Helvetian  Confes- 
sions, to  which  a  great  portion  of  the  reformed  Churches  have  expressed 
their  assent,  hkewise  speaks  of  it  in  such  a  strain  as  makes  me  very 
desirous  to  see  what  method  can  possibly  be  adopted  to  give  it  any  accord, 
ance  with  that  doctrine  of  the  predestination  which  I  have  stated.  With- 
out  the  least  contention  or  cavilling  it  may  be  very  properly  made  a 
subject  of  doubt,  whether  this  doctrine  agrees  with  the  Belgic  Con- 
fession and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism."  [JViclioVs  Works  of  ArmlniuSf 
vol.  i,  p.  557.) 

I  have  given  these  extracts  to  show  that  nothing  in  the  preceding  dis- 
cussion has  been  assumed  as  Calvinism,  but  what  is  to  be  found  in  the 
writings  of  the  founder  of  the  system,  and  in  the  confessions  and  creeds 
of  Churches  which  professedly  admitted  his  doctrine. 

With  respect  to  modifications  of  this  system,  the  sublapsarian  theory 
has  been  already  considered  and  shown  to  be  substantially  the  same  as 
the  system  which  it  professes  to  mitigate  and  improve.  We  may  now 
adduce  another  modified  theory;  but  shall,  upon  examination,  find  it 
but  little,  if  at  all,  removed  out  of  the  reach  of  those  objections  which 
have  been  stated  to  the  various  shades  of  the  predestinating  scheme 
already  noticed. 

That  scheme  is  in  England  usually  called  Baxterianism,  from  the 
celebrated  Baxter,  who  advocated  it  in  his  Treatise  of  Universal  Re- 
demption,  and  in  his  Methodus  Theologice.  He  was,  however,  in  this 
theory  but  the  disciple  of  certain  divines  of  the  French  Protestant 
Church,  whose  opinions  created  many  dissensions  abroad,  and  produced 
so  much  warmth  of  opposition  from  the  Calvinistic  party,  that  they  were 
obliged  first  to  engage  in  the  hopeless  attempt  of  softening  down  the 
harsher  aspects  of  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  and  the  synod  of  Dort,  in  order 
to  keep  themselves  in  countenance  ;  then  to  attack  the  Arminians  with 
asperity,  in  order  to  purge  themselves  of  the  suspicion  of  entire  hetero- 
2" 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  411 

doxy  in  a  Calvinistic  Church  ;  and,  finally,  to  withdraw  from  the  con- 
test.  The  Calvinism  of  the  Church  of  France  was,  however,  much 
mitigated  in  subsequent  times  by  the  influence  of  the  writings  of  these 
theologians;  a  result  which  also  has  followed  in  England  from  the 
labours  of  Baxter,  who,  though  he  formed  no  separate  school,  has  had 
numerous  followers  in  the  Calvinistic  Churches  of  this  country.  The 
real  author  of  the  scheme,  at  least,  in  a  systematized  form,  was  Camero, 
who  taught  divinity  at  Saumur,  and  it  was  unfolded  and  defended  by 
his  disciple  Amyraldus,  to  whom  Curcelteus  replied  in  the  work  from 
which  I  have  above  made  some  quotations.  Baxter  says,  in  his  preface 
to  his  Saints^  Rest,  "  The  middle  way  which  Camero,  Crocius,  Mar- 
tinius,  Amyraldus,  Davenant,  with  all  the  divines  of  Britain  and  Bremen, 
in  the  synod  of  Dort  go,  I  think  is  nearest  the  truth  of  any  that  I  know 
who  have  written  on  these  points."  (2)  This  system  he  laboured  pow- 
erfully to  defend,  and  his  works  on  this  subject,  although  his  system  is 
-often  spoken  of,  being  but  little  known  to  the  general  reader,  the  following 
exhibition  of  this  scheme,  from  his  work  entitled  "  Universal  Redemp- 
tion," may  be  acceptable.  It  makes  great  concessions  to  that  view  of 
the  Scriptural  doctrine  which  we  have  attempted  to  establish  ;  but,  for 
want  of  going  another  step,  it  is,  perhaps,  the  most  inconsistent  theory 
to  which  the  varied  attempts  to  modify  Calvinism  have  given  rise.  Bax- 
ter first  differs  from  the  majority  of  Calvinists,  though  not  from  all,  in 
his  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction. 

"  Christ's  sufferings  were  not  a  fulfilling  of-  the  law^s  threatening, 
(though  he  bore  its  curse  materially ,-)  but  a  satisfaction  for  our  not 
fulfilling  the  precept,  and  to  prevent  God^s  fulfilling  the  threatening 
on  us." 

"  Christ  paid  not,  therefore,  the  idem,  but  the  tantundem,  or  ceqinva- 
lens ;  not  the  very  debt  which  we  owed  and  the  law  required,  but  the 
value  ;  (else  it  were  not  strictly  satisfaction,  which  is  redditio  cequivalen- 
tis ;)  and  (it  being  improperly  called  the  paying  of  a  debt,  but  properly  a 
suffering  for  the  guilty)  the  idem  is  nothing  but  supplicium  delinquentis. 
In  criminals,  dum  alius  solvet  slmid  aliud  solvitur.  The  law  knoweth 
no  vicarius  pcencE  ;  though  the  law  maker  may  admit  it,  as  he  is  above 
law ;  else  there  were  no  place  for  pardon,  if  the  proper  debt  be  paid 
and  the  law  not  relaxed  hut  fulfilled." 

"  Christ  did  neither  obey  nor  suffer  in  any  man's  stead,  by  a  strict,  pro- 
per representation  of  his  person  in  point  of  law  ;  so  as  that  the  law  should 
take  it  as  done  or  suffered  by  the  party  himself     But  only  as  a  third 

(2)  Of  Camero,  or  Cameron,  Amyraldus,  Curcellaeus,  and  the  controversy  in 
which  they  were  engaged,  see  an  interesting  account  in  Nichol's  Arminianism 
and  Calvinism  Compared,  vol  i,  appendix  c ;  a  work  of  elaborate  research,  and 
abounding  with  the  most  curious  information  as  to  the  opinions  and  history  of 
those  times. 

2 


412  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

person^  as  a  mediator ^  he  voluntarily  bore  what  else  the  sinner  should 
have  borne." 

"  To  assert  the  contrary  (especially  as  to  particular  persons  con- 
sidered in  actual  sin)  is  to  overthrow  all  Scripture  theology,  and  to  in- 
troduce all  Antinomianism  ;  to  overthrow  all  possibihty  of  pardon,  and 
assert  justification  before  we  sinned  or  were  born,  and  to  make  ourselves 
to  have  satisfied  God. 

"  Therefore  we  must  not  say  that  Christ  died  nostra  loco,  so  as  to  per- 
sonate us,  or  represent  our  persons  in  law  sense ;  but  only  to  bear  what 
else  we  must  have  borne."  {Universal  Redemption,  pp.  48-51.) 

This  system  explicitly  asserts,  that  Christ  made  a  satisfaction  by  his 
death  equally  for  the  sins  of  every  man  ;  and  thus  Baxter  essentially 
differs  both  from  the  rigid  Calvinists,  and  also  from  the  sublapsarians, 
who,  though  they  may  allow  that  the  reprobate  derive  some  benefits 
from  Christ's  death,  so  that  there  is  a  vague  sense  in  which  he  may 
be  said  to  have  died  for  all  men,  yet  they,  of  course,  deny  to  such 
the  benefit  of  Christ's  satisfaction  or  atonement  which  Baxter  con- 
tends for. 

"  Neither  the  law,  whose  curse  Christ  bore,  nor  God,  as  the  legisla- 
tor to  be  satisfied,  did  distinguish  between  men  as  elect  and  reprobate,  or 
as  believers  and  unbelievers,  de  presenti  vel  de  futuro ;  and  to  impose 
upon  Christ,  or  require  from  him  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  one  sort 
more  than  of  another,  but  for  mankind  in  general. 

"  God  the  Father,  and  Christ  the  Mediator,  now  dealeth  with  no  man 
upon  the  mere  rigorous  terms  of  the  first  law  ;  {obey  perfectly  and  live, 
else  thou  shall  die ;)  but  giveth  to  all  much  mercy,  which,  according  to 
the  tenor  of  that  violated  law,  they  could  not  receive,  and  calleth  them 
to  repentance,  in  order  to  their  receiving  farther  mercy  offered  them. 
And  accordingly  he  will  not  judge  any  at  last  according  to  the  mere  law 
of  works,  but  as  they  have  obeyed  or  not  obeyed  his  conditions  or  terms 
of  grace. 

"  It  was  not  the  sins  of  the  elect  only,  but  of  all  mankind  fallen,  which 
lay  upon  Christ  satisfying.  And  to  assert  the  contrary,  injuriously 
diminisheth  the  honour  of  his  sufferings ;  and  hath  other  desperate  ill 
consequences."  (Universal  Redemption,  pp.  36,  37,  and  50.) 

The  benefits  derived  to  all  men  equally,  from  the  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
he  thus  states, — 

"  All  mankind  immediately  upon  Christ's  satisfaction,  are  redeemed 
and  delivered  from  that  legal  necessity  of  perishing  which  they  were 
under,  (not  by  remitting  sin  or  punishment  directly  to  them,  but  by  giv- 
ing up  God's  jus  puniendi  into  the  hands  of  the  Redeemer  ;  nor  by  giv- 
ing any  right  directly  to  them,  but  per  meram  resultantiam  this  happy 
change  is  made  for  them  in  their  relation,  upon  the  said  remitting  of 
God's  right  and  advantage  of  justice  against  them,)  and  they  are  given 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  413 

up  to  the  Redeemer  as  their  owner  and  ruler,  to  be  dealt  with  upon  terms 
of  mercy  which  have  a  tendency  to  their  recovery. 

"  God  the  Father  and  Christ  the  Mediator  hath  freely,  without  any 
prerequisite  condition  on  man's  part,  enacted  a  law  of  grace  of  univer- 
sal extent,  in  regard  of  its  tenor,  by  which  he  giveth,  as  a  deed  of  gift, 
Christ  himself,  with  all  his  following  benefits  which  he  bestoweth  ;  (as 
benefactor  and  legislator ;)  and  this  to  all  alike,  without  excluding  any  ; 
upon  condition  they  believe,  and  accept  the  offer. 

"  By  this  law,  testament,  or  covenant,  all  men  are  conditionally  par- 
doned, justified,  and  reconciled  to  God  already,  and  no  man  absolutely ; 
nor  doth  it  make  a  difference,  nor  take  notice  of  any  till  men's  perform- 
ance or  non-performance  of  the  condition  makes  a  difference. 

"  In  the  new  law  Christ  hath  truly  given  himself  with  a  conditional 
pardon,  justification,  and  conditional  right  to  salvation,  to  all  men  in  the 
world,  without  exception,''^  {Universal  Redemption,  p.  36,  &c.) 

On  the  case  of  the  heathen  : — 

"  Though  God  hath  been  pleased  less  clearly  to  acquaint  us  on  what 
terms  he  dealeth  with  those  that  hear  not  of  Christ,  yet  it  being  most 
clear  and  certain,  that  he  dealeth  with  them  on  terms  of  general  grace, 
and  not  on  the  terms  of  the  rigorous  law  of  works ;  this  may  evince  them 
to  be  the  Mediator's  subjects,  and  redeemed. 

"  Though  it  be  very  difficult,  and  not  very  necessary,  to  know  what 
is  the  condition  prescribed  to  them  that  hear  not  of  Christ,  or  on  what 
terms  Christ  will  judge  them ;  yet,  to  me  it  seems  to  be  the  covenant 
made  with  Adam,  Gen.  iii,  15,  which  they  are  under,  requiring  their 
taking  God  to  be  their  only  God  and  Redeemer,  and  to  expecting  mercy 
from  him  and  loving  him  above  all,  as  their  end  and  chief  good  ;  and 
repenting  of  sin,  and  sincere  obedience,  according  to  the  laws  promul- 
gated to  them,  to  lead  them  farther. 

"  All  those  that  have  not  heard  of  Christ,  have  yet  much  mercy  which 
they  receive  from  him,  and  is  the  fruit  of  his  death  :  according  to  the 
well  or  ill  using  whereof  it  seems  possible  that  God  will  judge  them. 

"  It  is  a  course  to  blind,  and  not  to  inform  men,  to  lay  the  main  stress 
in  the  doctrine  of  redemption  upon  our  uncertain  conclusions  of  God's 
dealing  with  such  as  never  heard  of  Christ,  seeing  all  proof  is  per  notiora  ; 
and  we  must  reduce  points  uncertain  to  the  certain,  and  not  the  certain  to 
the  uncertain,  in  our  trial."  {Universal  Redemption,  pp.  37,  38,  and  54.) 

In  arguments  drawn  from  the  consequences  which  follow  the  denial 
of  "  universal  satisfaction,"  Baxter  is  particularly  terse  and  conclusive. 

"  The  doctrine  which  denieth  universal  satisfaction  hath  all  these  in- 
conveniences and  absurd  consequents  following :  therefore  it  is  not  of 
God,  nor  true. 

"  It  either  denieth  the  universal  promise  or  conditional  gift  of  pardon 
and  life  to  all  men  if  they  will  believe,  and  then  it  overturneth  the  sub- 

2 


414  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Stance  of  Christ's  law  and  Gospel  promise ;  or  else  it  maketh  God  to 
give  conditionally  to  all  men  a  pardon  and  salvation  which  Christ  never 
purchased,  and  without  his  dying  for  men. 

"  It  maketh  God  either  not  to  offer  the  effects  of  Christ's  satisfaction 
(pardon  and  life)  to  all,  but  only  to  the  elect ;  or  else  to  offer  that  which 
is  not,  and  which  he  cannot  give. 

"  It  denieth  the  direct  object  of  faith,  and  of  God's  offer,  that  is  Chns- 
turn  qui  satisfecit,  (a  Christ  that  hath  satisfied.) 

"  It  either  denieth  the  non-elect's  deliverance  from  that  flat  neces- 
sity of  perishing,  which  came  on  man  for  sinning  against  the  first  law, 
by  its  remediless,  unsuspended  obligation ;  (and  so  neither  Christ,  Gos- 
pel, or  mercy,  had  ever  any  nature  of  a  remedy  to  them,  nor  any  more 
done  toward  their  deliverance  than  toward  the  deliverance  of  the  devils ;) 
or  else  it  maketh  this  deliverance  and  remedy  to  be  without  satisfaction 
by  Christ  for  them. 

"  It  either  denieth  that  God  commandeth  all  to  believe,  (but  only  the 
elect ;)  or  else  maketh  God  to  assign  them  a  deceiving  object  for  their 
faith,  commanding  them  to  believe  in  that  which  never  was,  and  to  trust 
in  that  which  would  deceive  them  if  they  did  trust  it. 

*'  It  maketh  God  either  to  have  appointed  and  commanded  the  non-elect 
to  use  no  means  at  all  for  their  recovery  and  salvation,  or  else  to  have  ap- 
pointed them  mezms  which  are  all  utterly  useless  and  insufficient,  for  want 
of  a  prerequisite  cause  without  them  ;  yea,  which  imply  a  contradiction. 

"  It  maketh  the  true  and  righteous  God  to  make  promises  of  pardon 
and  salvation  to  all  men  on  condition  of  believing,  which  he  neither 
would  nor  could  perform,  (for  want  of  such  satisfaction  to  his  justice,) 
if  they  did  believe. 

"  It  denieth  the  true  sufficiency  of  Christ's  death  for  the  pardoning 
and  saving  of  all  men,  if  they  did  beUeve. 

"  It  makes  the  cause  of  men's  damnation  to  be  principally  for  want 
of  an  expiatory  sacrifice  and  of  a  Saviour,  and  not  of  believing. 

"  It  leaveth  all  the  world,  elect  as  well  as  others,  without  any  ground 
and  object  for  the  first  justifying  faith,  and  in  an  utter  uncertainty  whe- 
ther they  may  believe  to  justification  or  not. 

"  It  denieth  the  most  necessary  humbling  aggravation  of  men's  sins, 
so  that  neither  the  minister  can  tell  wicked  men  that  they  have  sinned 
against  him  that  bought  them,  nor  can  any  wicked  man  so  accuse  him- 
self; no,  nor  any  man  that  doth  not  know  himself  to  be  elect :  they  can- 
not say,  my  sins  put  Christ  to  death,  and  were  the  cause  of  his  suffer- 
ings :  nay,  a  minister  cannot  tell  any  man  in  the  world,  certainly,  (their 
sins  put  Christ  to  death,)  because  he  is  not  certain  who  is  elect  or  sin- 
cere in  the  faith. 

"  It  subverteth  Christ's  new  dominion  and  government  of  the  world, 
and  his  general  legislation  and  judgment  according  to  his  law,  which  is 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  415 

now  founded  in  his  title  of  redemption,  as  the  first  dominion  and  govern- 
ment  was  on  the  title  of  creation. 

"  It  maketh  all  the  benefits  that  the  non-elect  receive,  whether  spi- 
ritual or  corporal ;  and  so  even  the  relaxation  of  the  curse  of  the  law, 
(without  which  relaxation  no  man  could  have  such  mercies,)  to  befall 
men  without  the  satisfaction  of  Christ ;  and  so  either  make  satisfaction, 
as  to  all  those  mercies,  needless,  or  else  must  find  another  satisfier. 

"  It  maketh  the  law  of  grace  to  contain  far  harder  terms  than  the  law 
of  works  did  in  its  utmost  rigour. 

"  It  maketh  the  law  of  Moses  either  to  bind  all  the  non-elect  still  ta 
all  ceremonies  and  bondage  ordinances,  (and  so  sets  up  Judaism,)  or 
else  to  be  abrogated  and  taken  down,  and  men  dehvered  from  it,  with- 
out Christ's  sutfering  for  them. 

"  It  destroys  almost  the  whole  work  of  the  ministry,  disabling  minis- 
ters either  to  humble  men  by  the  chiefest  aggravations  of  their  sins,  and 
to  convince  them  of  ingratitude  and  unkind  dealing  with  Christ,  or  to 
show  them  any  hopes  to  draw  them  to  repentance,  or  any  love  and 
mercy  tending  to  salvation  to  melt  and  win  them  to  the  love  of  Christ ; 
or  any  sufficient  object  for  their  faith  and  affiance,  or  any  means  to  be 
used  for  pardon  or  salvation,  or  any  promise  to  encourage  them  to  come 
in,  or  any  threatening  to  deter  them. 

"  It  makes  God  and  the  Redeemer  to  have  done  no  more  for  the 
remedying  of  the  misery  of  most  of  fallen  mankind  than  for  the  devils, 
nor  to  have  put  them  into  any  more  possibility  of  pardon  or  salvation. 

"  Nay,  it  makes  God  to  have  dealt  far  hardher  with  most  men  than 
with  the  devils ;  making  them  a  law  which  requireth  their  believing  in 
one  that  never  died  for  them,  and  taking  him  for  their  Redeemer  that 
never  redeemed  them,  and  that  on  the  mere  foresight  that  they  would 
not  believe  it,  or  decree  that  they  should  not ;  and  so  to  create  by  that 
law  a  necessity  of  their  far  sorer  punishment,  without  procuring  thera 
any  possibility  of  avoiding  it. 

"  It  makes  the  Gospel  of  its  own  nature  to  be  the  greatest  plague  and 
judgment  to  most  of  men  that  receive  it,  that  ever  God  sendeth  to  men 
on  earth,  by  binding  them  over  to  a  greater  punishment,  and  aggravat- 
ing their  sin,  without  giving  them  any  possibility  of  remedy. 

"  It  maketh  the  case  of  all  the  world,  except  the  elect,  as  deplorate, 
remediless,  and  hopeless,  as  the  case  of  the  damned,  and  so  denieth 
them  to  have  any  day  of  grace,  visitation,  or  salvation,  or  any  price  for 
happiness  put  into  their  hands. 

"  It  maketh  Christ  to  condemn  men  to  hell  fire  for  not  receiving  him 
for  their  Redeemer  that  never  redeemed  them,  and  for  not  resting  on 
him  for  salvation  by  his  blood,  which  was  never  shed  for  them,  and  for 
not  repenting  unto  life,  when  they  had  no  hope  of  mercy,  and  faith  and 
repentance  could  iwt  have  saved  them. 

2 


416  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

"  It  putteth  sufficient  excuses  into  the  mouths  of  the  condemned. 

"  It  maketh  the  torments  of  conscience  in  hell  to  be  none  at  all,  and 
teacheth  the  damned  to  put  away  all  their  sorrows  and  self  accusations. 

"  It  denieth  all  the  privative  part  of  those  torments  which  men  are 
obliged  to  suffer  by  the  obhgation  of  Christ's  law,  and  so  maketh  hell 
either  no  hell  at  all,  or  next  to  none. 

"  And  I  shall  anon  show  how  it  leads  to  infidelity  and  other  sins,  and, 
after  this,  what  face  of  religion  is  left  unsubverted  ?  Not  that  I  charge 
those  that  deny  universal  satisfaction  with  holding  all  these  abomina- 
tions ;  but  their  doctrine  of  introducing  them  by  necessary  consequence  : 
it  is  the  opinion  and  not  the  men  that  I  accuse." 

A  thorough  Arminian  could  say  nothing  stronger  than  what  is  asserted 
in  several  of  the  above  quotations ;  and,  perhaps,  what  might  not  be 
borne  from  him,  may  call  attention  from  Baxter,  and  happy  would  it  be 
if  every  advocate  of  Calvin's  reprobation  would  give  these  "conse- 
quents," a  candid  consideration. 

The  peculiarity  of  Baxter's  scheme  will  be  seen  from  the  followmg 
farther  extracts ;  and,  after  all,  it  singularly  leaves  itself  open  to  almost 
all  the  objections  which  he  so  powerfully  urges  against  Calvinism  itself. 

"  Though  Christ  died  equally  for  all  men,  in  the  aforesaid  law  sense, 
as  he  satisfied  the  offended  hgislator,  and  as  giving  himself  to  all  alike 
in  the  conditional  covenant ;  yet  he  never  properly  intended  or  pur- 
posed   THE    ACTUAL    JUSTIFYING   AND    SAVING    OF   ALL,   nor  of  ANY  but 

those  that  come  to  be  justified  and  saved :  he  did  not,  therefore,  die  for 
all,  nor  for  any  that  perish,  with  a  decree  or  resolution  to  save  them, 

MUCH  LESS  DID  HE  DIE  FOR  ALL  ALIKE,  AS  TO  THIS  INTENT. 

"  Christ  hath  given  faith  to  none  by  his  law  or  testament,  though  he 
hath  revealed,  that  to  some  he  will,  as  benefactor  and  Dominus  Abso- 
LUTUs,  give  that  grace  which  shall  infallibly  produce  it ;  and  God  hath 
given  some  to  Christ  that  he  might  prevail  with  them  accordingly ;  yet 
this  is  no  giving  it  to  the  person,  nor  hath  he  in  himself  ever  the  more 
title  to  it,  nor  can  any  lay  claim  to  it  as  their  due. 

"  It  belongeth  not  to  Christ  as  satisfier,  nor  yet  as  legislator,  to  make 
wicked  refusers  to  become  willing,  and  receive  him  and  the  benefits 
which  he  offers ;  therefore  he  may  do  all  for  them  that  is  fore-expressed, 
though  he  cure  not  their  unbelief. 

"  Faith  is  a  fruit  of  the  death  of  Christ,  (and  so  is  all  the  good  which 
we  do  enjoy,)  but  not  directly,  as  it  is  satisfaction  to  justice ;  but  only 
remotely,  as  it  proceedeth  from  that  jus  dominii  which  Christ  has  re- 
ceived to  send  the  Spirit  in  what  measure  and  to  whom  he  will,  and 
to  succeed  it  accordingly ;  and  as  it  is  necessary  to  the  attainment  of 
the  farther  ends  of  his  death  in  the  certain  gathering  and  saving  of  the 
elect."  (Universal  Redemption,  p.  63,  &;c.) 

Thus,  then,  the  whole  theory  comes  to  this,  that,  although  a  condu 
2 


Second.]  theological  institutes.  417 

tional  salvation  has  been  purchased  by  Christ  for  all  men,  and  is  offered 
to  them,  and  all  legal  difficulties  are  removed  out  of  the  way  of  their 
pardon  as  sinners  by  the  atonement,  yet  Christ  hath  not  purchased  for 
any  man  the  gift  of  faith,  or  the  power  of  performing  the  condition  of 
salvation  required ;  but  gives  this  to  some,  and  does  not  give  it  to  others, 
by  virtue  of  that  absolute  dominion  over  men  which  he  has  purchased 
for  himself;  so  that,  in  fact,  the  old  scheme  of  election  and  reprobation 
still  comes  in,  only  with  this  difference,  that  the  Calvinists  refer  that 
decree  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  Father,  Baxter  to  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Son ;  one  makes  the  decree  of  reprobation  to  issue  from  the  Creator 
and  Judge  ;  the  other,  (which  is  indeed  the  more  repulsive  view,)  front 
the  Redeemer  himself,  who  has  purchased  even  those  to  whom  he  de- 
nies the  gift  of  faith  with  his  own  most  precious  blood.  This  is  plain 
from  the  following  quotation  : — 

"  God  did  not  give  Christ  faith  for  his  blood  shed  in  exchange ;  the 
thing  that  God  was  to  give  the  Son  for  his  satisfaction,  was  dominion 
and  rule  of  the  redeemed  Creature,  and  power  therein  to  use  what  means 
he  saw  fit  for  the  bringing  in  of  souls  to  himself,  even  to  send  forth  scf 
much  of  his  word  and  Spirit  as  he  pleased ;  both  the  Father  and  Son 
resolving,  from  eternity,  to  prevail  infallibly  with  all  the  elect ;  but 
never  did  Christ  desire  at  his  Father's  hands  that  all  whom  he  satisfied 
for,  should  be  infallibly  and  irresistibly  brought  to  believe,  nor  did  God 
ever  grant  or  promise  any  such  thing.  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  ransom,  died 
for  all,  and  as  Rector  per  leges,  or  legislator,  he  hath  conveyed  the 
fruits  of  his  death  to  all,  that  is,  those  fruits  which  it  appertained  to  hirrt 
as  legislator,  to  convey,  which  is  right  to  what  his  new  law  or  covenant 
doth  promise ;  but  those  mercies  which  he  gives  as  Dominus  absoluius, 
arbitrarily  beside  or  above  his  engagement,  he  neither  gives  nor  evef 
intended  to  give  to  all  that  he  died  for."  (Universal  Redemption, 
p.  425.) 

The  only  quibble  which  prevents  the  real  aspect  of  this  scheme  from 
being  at  first  seen,  is,  that  Baxter,  and  the  divines  of  this  school,  give 
to  the  elect  irresistible  effectual  grace ;  but  contend,  that  others  have 
sufficient  grace.  This  kind  of  grace  is  called,  aptly  enough,  by  Baxter 
himself,  "  sufficient  ineffectual  grace ;"  and  that  it  is  worthy  the  appel- 
lation,  his  own  account  of  it  will  show. 

"  I  say  it  again,  confidently,  all  men  that  perish  (who  have  the 
use  of  reason)  do  perish  directly,  for  rejecting  sufficient  recovering 
grace.  By  grace,  I  mean  mercy  contrary  to  merit :  by  recovering,  I 
mean  such  as  tendeth  in  its  own  nature  toward  their  recovery,  and 
leadeth  or  helpeth  them  thereto.  By  sufficient,  I  mean,  not  suffi- 
cient DIRECTLY  TO  SAVE  THEM  ;  (for  such  nouc  of  the  elect  have  till 
they  are  saved ;)  nor  yet  sufficient  to  give  them  faith  or  cause 
THEM  savingly  TO  BELIEVE.     But  it  is  Sufficient  to  bring  them  nearer 

Vol.  II.  27 


418  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Christ  than  they  are,  though  not  to  put  them  into  immediate  possession 
of  Christ  by  union  with  him,  as  faith  would  do.  It  is  an  easy  truth, 
that  all  men  naturally  are  far  from  Christ,  and  that  some,  by  custom  in 
sinning,  for  want  of  informing  and  restreiining  means,  are  much  farther 
from  him  than  others,  (as  the  heathens  are,)  and  that  it  is  not  God's 
usual  way  (nor  to  be  expected)  to  bring  these  men  to  Christ  at  once,  by 
one  act,  or  without  any  preparation,  or  first  bringing  them  nearer  to 
him.  It  is  a  similitude  used  by  some  that  oppose  what  I  now  say : 
suppose  a  man  in  a  lower  room  should  go  no  more  steps  than  he  in  the 
middle  room,  he  must  go  many  steps  before  he  came  to  be  as  near  you 
as  the  other  is.  Now,  suppose  you  offer  to  take  them  by  the  hand  when 
they  come  to  the  upper  stairs,  and  give  them  some  other  sufficient  help 
to  come  up  the  lower  steps :  if  these  men  will  not  use  the  help  given 
them  to  ascend  the  first  steps,  (though  entreated,)  who  can  be  blamed 
but  themselves  if  they  came  not  to  the  top  ?  It  is  not  your  fault  but 
theirs,  that  they  have  not  your  hand  to  lift  them  up  at  the  last  step.  So 
is  our  present  case.  Worldlings,  and  sensual  ignorant  sinners,  have 
many  steps  to  ascend  before  they  come  to  justifying  faith ;  and  heathens 
have  many  steps  before  they  come  as  far  as  ungodly  Christians,  (as 
might  easily  be  manifested  by  enumeration  of  several  necessary  parti- 
culars.) Now,  if  these  will  not  use  that  sufficient  help  that  Christ 
gives  them  to  come  the  first,  or  second,  or  third  step,  whose  fault  is  it 
that  they  have  not  faith?"  {Universal  Redemption,  p.  434.) 

But  we  have  no  reason  to  conclude,  from  this  system,  that  if  they 
took  the  steps  required,  it  would  bring  them  "  nearer  to  Christ  than  they 
are,"  or,  at  least,  bring  them  up  to  saving  faith,  which  is  the  great 
point,  since  Mr.  Baxter's  own  doctrine  is,  that  Christ  "  never  properly 
intended  or  purposed  the  actual  justifying,  and  saving  of  all,  and  did  not, 
therefore,  die  for  all,  nor  for  any  that  perish,  with  a  design  or  resolution 
to  save  them,  much  less  did  he  die  for  all,  as  to  this  intent."  Those, 
then,  for  whom  Christ  died,  not  with  intent  to  give  saving  faith,  cannot 
be  saved ;  yet  we  are  told  that  to  these  sufficient  grace  is  given,  to  take 
a  step  or  two  which  would  bring  them  "  nearer  to  Christ."  Suppose 
such  persons,  then,  to  take  these  steps,  yet,  as  Christ  died  not  for  them, 
with  intent  to  give  them  saving  faith,  without  this  intent  they  cannot 
have  saving  faith,  since  it  is  not  a  part  of  Christ's  purchase,  but  his 
arbitrary  gift.  The  truth  then  is,  that  their  salvation  is  as  impossible 
as  that  of  the  reprobates  under  the  supralapsarian  scheme,  and  the 
reason  of  their  doom  is  no  act  of  th^ir  own,  but  an  act  of  Christ  him- 
self, who,  as  "  absolute  Lord,"  denies  that  to  them  which  is  necessary  to 
their  salvation. 

It  is,  however,  but  fair  that  Mr.  Baxter  should  himself  answer  this 
objection. 

"  Objection. — Then,  they  that  come  not  the  first  step  are  excusable ; 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES^  410 

for,  if  they  had  come  to  the  step  next  believing,  they  had  no  assurance 
that  Christ  would  have  given  them  faith. 

"  Answer,— No  such  matter  :  for  though  they  had  no  assurance,  they 
had  both  God's  command  to  seek  more  grace,  and  sufficient  encourage- 
ment thereto ;  they  had  such  as  Mr.  Cotton  calls  half  promises,  that 
is,  a  discovery  of  a  possibility,  and  high  degree  of  probability  of  ob- 
taining ;  as  Peter  to  Simony  pray,  if  perhaps  the  thoughts  of  thy  heart 
may  be  forgiven.  They  may  think  God  will  not  appoint  men  vain  means, 
and  he  hath  appointed  some  means  to  all  men  to  get  more  grace,  and 
bring  them  nearer  Christ  than  they  are.  Yea,  no  man  can  name  that 
man  since  the  world  was  made,  that  did  his  best  in  the  use  of  these 
means,  and  lost  his  labour.  So  that  if  all  men  have  not  faith  it  is  their 
own  fault ;  not  only  as  originally  sinners,  but  as  rejecting  sufficient 
grace  to  have  brought  them  nearer  Christ  than  they  were ;  for  which 
it  is  that  they  justly  perish,  as  is  more  fully  opened  in  the  dispute  of 
sufficient  grace." 

One  argument  from  Scripture  demolishes  this  whole  scheme.  Mr. 
Baxter  makes  the  condemnation  of  men  to  rest  upon  their  not  coming 
"  nearer  to  Christ"  than  they  are  in  their  natural  state ;  but  the  Scrip, 
ture  places  their  guilt  in  not  fully  "  coming  to  him ;"  or,  in  other  words, 
in  their  not  believing  in  Christ  "  to  salvation,"  since  it  has  made  faith 
their  duty,  and  has  connected  salvation  with  faith.  That  they  must 
take  previous  steps,  such  as  consideration  and  repentance,  is  true,  and 
that  they  are  guilty  for  not  taking  them ;  but  then  their  guilt  arises  from 
their  rejection  of  a  strength  and  grace  to  consider  and  repent  which  is 
imparted  to  them,  in  order  to  lead  them,  through  this  process,  to  saving 
faith  itself;  and  they  are  condemned  for  not  having  this  faith,  because 
not  only  the  preparatory  steps,  but  the  faith  itself  is  put  within  their 
reach,  or  they  could  not  be  condemned  for  unbelief  If  Baxter  really 
meant  that  any  steps  these  non-elect  persons  could  take,  would  actually 
put  them  into  possession  of  saving  faith,  he  would  have  said  so  in  so 
many  plain  words,  and  then  between  him  and  the  Arminians  there 
would  have  been  no  difference,  so  far  as  they  who  perish  are  con- 
cerned. But  coming  nearer  to  Christ,  and  nearer  to  saving  faith 
are  with  him  quite  distinct.  His  concern  was  not  to  show  how  the 
non-elect  might  be  saved,  but  how  they  might  with  some  plausibility  be 
damned. 

«  What  then,"  says  Dr.  Womack,  "  is  the  universal  redemption  you 
or  they  speak  of?  Doth  it  consist  in  the  oblation  of  the  curse  or  pain, 
the  impetration  of  grace  and  righteousness,  and  the  collation  of  life  and 
glory  ?  Man's  misery  consists  but  of  two  parts,  sin  and  punishment. 
Doth  your  universal  redemption  make  sufficient  provision  to  free  the 
non- elect  from  both,  or  from  either  of  these  ?  From  the  wrath  to  come, 
the  damnation  of  hell,  or  from  iniquity  and  their  vain  conversation  7  In- 

2 


420  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

deed,  in  your  assize  sermons,  you  did  very  seasonably  preach  up  Christ 
to  be  a  Lord  Chief  Justice  to  judge  the  reprobate ;  but  I  cannot  find 
that  ever  you  declare  him  to  be  their  Lord  Keeper,  or  their  Lord  Trea- 
surer, to  communicate  his  saving  grace  for  their  conversion,  or  to  secure 
them  against  the  assaults  and  rage  of  their  ghostly  enemy.  These  last 
offices  you  suppose  him  to  bear  in  favour  of  the  elect  only,  so  that  your 
universal  redemption  holds  a  very  fair  correspondence  with  your  suffi- 
dent  grace,  (as  to  the  non-elect,) — there  is  not  one  single  person  sancti- 
fied by  this,  or  saved  by  that."  {Calvinistic  Cabinet  Unlocked.) 

The  remark  of  Curcellaeus  on  the  same  system,  as  delivered  by 
Amyraldus,  is  conclusive. 

*<  Beside,  since  faith  is  necessary,  in  order  to  make  us  partakers  of 
the  benefits  which  are  procured  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  since  no 
one  can  obtain  it  by  his  natural  powers,  (for  it  is  imparted  through  a 
special  gift,  from  which  God,  by  an  absolute  decree,  has  excluded  the 
greatest  portion  of  mankind,)  of  what  avail  is  it  that  Christ  has  died  for 
those  to  whom  faith  is  denied  ?  Does  not  the  affair  revert  to  the  same 
point,  as  if  he  had  never  entertained  an  intention  of  redeeming  them  ?" 
{De  Jure  Dei  Creaturas,  ^c.) 

This  cannot  consistently  be  denied.  Mr.  Baxter,  indeed,  says,  that 
"  none  can  name  the  man  since  the  world  was  made,  that  did  his  best 
in  the  use  of  the  means  to  obtain  more  grace,  and  lost  his  labour."  So 
we  believe,  but  this  helps  not  Mr.  Baxter.  One  of  his  main  principles 
is,  that  there  is  a  class  of  men  to  whom  Christ  has  resolved  to  give 
saving  faith  ;  to  the  rest  he  has  resolved  not  to  give  it.  The  man,  then, 
who  seeks  more  than  common  grace,  and  obtains  saving  grace,  is  either 
in  the  class  to  whom  Christ  has  resolved,  by  right  of  dominion,  to  give 
saving  grace,  or  he  is  not.  If  the  former,  then  he  is  one  of  the  elect, 
and  so  the  instance  given  proves  nothing  as  to  the  case  of  the  non- elect ; 
but,  if  he  be  of  the  latter  class,  then  one  of  those  to  whom  Christ  never 
resolved  to  give  saving  grace,  by  some  means  obtains  it, — how,  it  will 
be  difficult  to  say.  In  fact,  it  was  never  allowed  by  Mr.  Baxter,  or  his 
followers,  that  any  but  the  elect  would  be  saved. 

The  remarks  of  a  Calvinist  upon  the  "middle  scheme"  of  the  French 
divines,  the  same  in  substance  as  that  which  was  afterward  advocated 
by  Baxter,  may  properly  close  our  remarks. 

"  This  mitigated  view  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination  has  only  one 
defect ;  but  it  is  a  capital  one.  It  represents  God  as  desiring  a  thing 
(that  is,  salvation  and  happiness)  for  all,  which,  in  order  to  its  attain- 
ment, requires  a  degree  of  his  assistance  and  succour,  which  he  refuseth 
to  MANY.  This  rendered  grace  and  redemption  universal  only  in 
words,  but  partial  in  reality ;  and,  therefore,  did  not  at  all  mend  the 
matter.  The  supralapsarians  were  consistent  with  themselves ;  but 
their  doctrine  was  harsh  and  terrible,  and  was  founded  on  the  most  un- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  421 

worthy  notions  of  the  Supreme  Being ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sys- 
tem of  Amyraut  was  full  of  inconsistencies  :  nay,  even  the  sublapsarian 
doctrine  has  its  difficulties,  and  rather  palliates  than  removes  the  horrors 
of  supralapsarianism.  What,  then,  is  to  be  done  ?  From  what  quarter 
shall  the  candid  and  well-disposed  Christian  receive  that  soUd  satisfac- 
tion and  wise  direction  which  neither  of  these  systems  is  adapted  to 
administer  ?  These  he  will  receive  by  turning  his  dazzled  and  feeble 
eye  from  the  secret  decrees  of  God,  which  were  neither  designed  to  be 
rules  of  action,  nor  sources  of  comfort  to  mortals  here  below  ;  and,  by 
fixing  his  view  upon  the  mercy  of  God,  as  it  is  manifested  through 
Christ,  the  pure  laws  and  sublime  promises  of  his  Gospel,  and  the  equity 
of  his  present  government  and  future  tribunal."  {Maclaine's  Notes  on 
Mosheim's  History.) 

The  theory,  to  which  the  name  of  Baxter  has  given  some  weight  in 
this  country,  has  been  introduced  more  at  length,  because  with  it  stEuids 
or  falls  every  system  of  moderated  or  modified  Calvinism,  which  by  more 
modem  writers  has  been  advocated.  The  scheme  of  Dr.  Williams,  of 
Rotherham,  is  little  beside  the  old  theory  of  supralapsarian  reprobation, 
in  its  twofold  enunciation  of  preterition,  by  which  God  refuses  help 
to  a  creature  which  cannot  stand  without  help,  and  his  consequent 
DAMNATION  for  the  crimes  committed  in  consequence  of  this  withholding 
of  supernatural  aid.  The  dress  is  altered,  and  the  system  has  a  dash 
of  Cameronism,  but  it  is  in  substance  the  same.  All  other  mitigated 
schemes  rest  on  two  principles,  the  sufficiency  of  the  atonement  for  all 
mankind,  and  the  sufficiency  of  grace  to  those  who  beheve  not.  For  the 
first,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  the  synod  of  Dort  and  the  higher  Calvin- 
istic  school  will  agree  with  them  upon  this  point,  and  so  nothing  is 
gained ;  for  the  second,  that  the  sufficiency  of  grace  in  these  schemes 
is  always  understood  in  Baxter's  sense,  and  is  mere  verbiage.  It  is  not 
"  the  grace  of  God  which  bbingeth  salvation  ;"  for  no  man  is  actu- 
ally saved  without  something  more  than  this  "  sufficient  grace"  provides. 
That  which  is  contended  for,  is,  in  fact,  not  a  sufficiency  of  grace  in 
order  to  salvation  ;  but,  in  order  to  justify  the  condemnation  which 
inevitably  follows.  For  this  alone  the  struggle  is  made,  but  without 
success.  The  main  characteristic  of  all  these  theories,  from  the  first 
to  the  last,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  is,  that  a  part  of  mankind  are 
shut  out  from  the  mercies  of  God,  on  some  ground  irrespective  of  their 
refusal  of  a  sincere  offer  to  them  of  salvation  through  Christ,  made  with 
a  communicated  power  of  embracing  it.  Some  power  they  allow  to  the 
reprobate,  as  natural  power,  and  degrees  of  superadded  moral  power ; 
but  in  no  case  the  power  to  beheve  unto  salvation ;  and  thus,  as  one 
well  observes,  "  when  they  have  cut  some  fair  trenches,  as  if  they  would 
bring  the  water  of  life  unto  the  dwelhngs  of  the  reprobate,  on  a  sudden 
they  open  a  sluice  which  carries  it  off  again."     The  whole  labour  of 

2 


422  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

these  theories  is  to  find  out  some  decent  pretext  for  the  infliction  of 
punishment  on  them  that  perish,  independent  of  the  only  reason  given 
by  Scripture,  their  rejection  of  a  mercy  free  for  all. 

Having  exhibited  the  Calvinistic  system  on  its  own  authorities,  it  may 
be  naturally  asked  from  what  mode  or  bias  of  thinking  a  scheme  could 
arise  so  much  at  variance  with  the  Scriptures,  and  with  all  received 
notions  of  just  and  benevolent  administration  among  men  ;  properties  of 
government  which  must  be  found  more  perfectly  in  the  government  of  God, 
by  reason  of  the  perfection  of  its  author,  than  in  any  other.  That  it  had 
its  source  in  a  course  of  induction  from  the  sacred  Scriptures,  though 
erroneous,  is  not  probable ;  for,  if  it  had  been  left  to  that  test,  it  is  pretty 
certain  it  would  not  have  maintained  itself.  It  appears  rather  to  have 
arisen  from  metaphysical  hypotheses  and  school  subtilties,  to  which  the 
sense  of  Scripture  has  been  accommodated,  often  very  violently ;  and 
by  subtilties  of  this  kind,  it  has,  at  all  times,  been  chiefly  supported. 

It  has,  for  instance,  been  assumed  by  the  advocates  of  this  theological 
theory,  that  all  things  which  come  to  pass  have  been  fixed  by  eternal 
DECREES ;  and  that  as  many  men  actually  perish,  it  must,  therefore, 
have  been  decreed  that  they  should  perish  :  and,  consistently  with  such 
a  scheme,  it  became  necessary  to  exclude  a  part  of  the  human  race 
from  all  share  in  the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption.  The  argument 
employed  to  confirm  the  premises  is,  "  that  it  is  agreeable  to  reason  and 
to  the  analogy  of  nature,  that  God  should  conduct  all  things  according 
to  a  deliberate  and  fixed  plan,  mdependent  of  his  creatures,  rather  than 
that  he  should  be  influenced,  even  in  his  purposes,  by  the  foresight  of 
their  capricious  conduct."  (Dr.  Rankin's  Institutes,)  "  It  is  not  easy 
to  reconcile  the  imrautabihty  and  efficacy  of  the  Divine  counsel  which 
enters  into  our  conceptions  of  the  first  cause,  with  a  purpose  to  save  all, 
suspended  upon  a  condition  which  is  not  fulfilled  with  regard  to  many.'* 
(Dr.  Hill's  Lectures.)  This  has,  indeed,  all  along  been  the  main  stress 
of  the  argument  for  absolute  decrees,  that  a  conditional  decree  reflects 
dishonour  upon  the  Divine  attributes,  '« by  leaving  God,  as  it  were,  in 
suspense,  and  waiting  to  see  what  men  will  do,  before  he  passes  a  firm 
and  irrevocable  decree ;"  which,  as  they  say,  seems  to  imply  want  of 
power  and  prescience  in  God,  and  to  be  inconsistent  with  other  of  his 
Divine  perfections.  They  especially  think,  that  this  is  in*econcilable 
with  the  immutability  of  God,  and  that  to  subject  his  decrees  to  the 
changes  of  a  countless  number  of  mutable  beings,  must  render  him  the 
most  mutable  being  in  the  universe. 

The  whole  of  this  objection,  however,  seems  to  involve  &  petitio  prin- 
cipii  It  is  taken  for  granted,  either  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  abso- 
lute  appointments  from  eternity,  and  then  any  change  of  his  decrees, 
dependent  upon  the  acts  of  creatures,  would  be  a  contradiction ;  or  else, 
that  the  acts  of  creatures  being  free,  it  follows,  that  God  had  from  eter- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  423 

nity  no  plan,  and  conducts  his  own  government  only  as  circumstances 
may  arise.  But,  that  either  the  decrees  of  God  are  fixed  and  absolute, 
or,  that  God  can  have  no  plan  of  government  if  that  be  denied,  is  the 
very  alternative  to  be  proved,  the  matter  which  is  in  debate.  It  becomes 
necessary,  therefore,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  truth,  to  fix  the  sense  of 
the  favourite  term  "  decrees,"  and  for  this  we  have  no  sound  guide  but 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  which,  as  to  what  relates  to  man's  salvation  at 
least,  contain  the  only  exposition  of  the  purposes  of  God. 

The  term  "  decree"  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  used  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  taken  in  the  theology  of  the  Calvinists.  It  is  properly  a  legislative 
or  judicial  term,  importing  the  solemn  decision  of  a  court,  and  was  adopted 
into  that  system,  probably,  because  of  the  absolute  meaning  it  conveys, 
which  quality  of  absoluteness  is,  in  fact,  the  point  debated.  The  "pur- 
pose" and  "  counsel"  of  God  are  the  Scriptural  terms  appUcable  to  this 
subject ;  one  of  which,  "counsel,"  expresses  an  act  of  wisdom,  and  the 
other  necessarily  implies  it,  as  it  is  the  "purpose"  design,  or  determina- 
tion  of  a  Being  of  infinite  perfection,  who  can  purpose,  design,  will,  and 
determine  nothing  but  under  the  direction  of  his  intelligence,  and  the 
regulation  of  his  moral  attributes. 

Terms  are  not  indeed  to  be  objected  to  merely  because  they  are  not 
found  in  the  word  of  God  ;  but  their  signification  must  be  controlled  by 
it,  otherwise,  as  in  the  case  of  the  term  decrees,  a  meaning  is  often 
silently  brought  in  under  covert  of  the  term,  which  becomes  a  postulate 
in  argument :  a  practice  which  has  been  a  fruitful  source  of  misappre- 
hension and  error.  The  decrees  of  God,  if  the  phrase  then  must  be 
continued,  can  only  Scripturally  signify  the  determinations  of  his  will  in 
his  government  of  the  world  he  has  made  ;  and  those  determinations  are 
plainly,  in  Scripture,  referred  to  tw^o  classes,  what  he  has  himself  deter- 
mined to  dOf  and  what  he  has  determined  to  permit  to  be  done  by  free 
and  accountable  creatures.  He  determined,  for  instance,  to  create  man, 
and  he  determined  to  permit  his  fall ;  he  determined  also  the  only  me- 
thod of  dispensing  pardon  to  the  guilty,  but  he  determined  to  permit  men 
to  reject  it,  and  to  fall  into  the  punishment  of  their  offences.  Calvin, 
indeed,  rejects  the  doctrine  of  permission.  "  It  is  not  probable,"  he 
says,  "  that  man  procured  his  own  destruction  by  the  mere  permission, 
and  without  any  appointment  of  God."  He  had  reason  for  this  ;  for  to 
have  allowed  this  distinction  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  main  prin- 
ciples  of  his  theological  system,  which  are,  that  "  the  will  of  God  is  the 
necessity  of  things,"  and  that  all  things  are  previously  fixed  by  an  abso- 
lute decree ;  so  that  they  must  happen.  The  consequence  is,  that  he 
and  his  followers  involve  themselves  in  the  tremendous  consequence  of 
making  God  the  author  of  sin ;  which,  after  all  their  disavowals,  and  we 
grant  them  sincere,  will  still  logically  cleave  to  them :  for  it  is  obvious, 
that  by  nothing  can  we  fairly  avoid  this  consequence  but  by  allowing 


424  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  distinction  between  determinations  to  do,  on  the  part  of  God,  and 
determinations  to  permit  certain  things  to  be  done  by  others.  The 
principle  laid  down  by  Calvin  is  destructive  of  all  human  agency,  seeing 
it  converts  man  into  a  mere  instrument ;  while  the  other  maintains  his 
agency  in  its  proper  sense,  and,  therefore,  his  proper  accountability.  On 
Calvin's  principle,  man  is  no  more  an  agent  than  the  knife  in  the  hand 
of  the  assarsin ;  and  he  is  not  more  responsible,  therefore,  in  equity,  to 
punishment,  than  the  knife  by  which  the  assassination  is  committed,  were 
it  capable  of  being  punished.  For  if  man  has  not  a  real  agency,  that  is, 
if  there  is  a  necessity  above  hjm  so  controlUng  his  actions  as  to  render 
it  impossible  that  they  should  have  been  otherwise,  he  is  in  the  hands  of 
another,  and  not  master  of  himself,  an4  so  his  actions  cease  to  be  his 
own. 

A  decree  to  permit  involves  no  such  consequences.  This  is  indeed 
acknowledged ;  but  then,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  urged  that  this  imposes 
an  uncertainty  upon  the  Divine  plans,  and  makes  him  dependent  upon 
the  acts  of  the  creature.  In  neither  of  these  allegations  is  there  any 
weight ;  for  as  to  the  first,  there  can  be  no  uncertainty  in  the  principles 
of  the  administration  of  a  Being  who  regulates  the  whole  by  the  immu- 
table rules  of  righteousness,  holiness,  truth,  and  goodness ;  so  that  all 
the  acts  of  the  creature  do  but  call  forth  some  new  illustration  of  his 
unchangeable  regard  to  these  principles.  Nor  can  any  act  of  a  crea- 
ture render  his  plans  uncertain  by  coming  upon  him  by  surprise,  and 
thus  obhge  him  to  alter  his  intentions  on  the  spur  of  the  moment.  What 
the  creature  will  do,  in  fact,  is  known  beforehand  with  a  perfect  pre- 
science, which  yet,  as  we  have  already  proved,  (Part  ii,  c.  4,)  inter- 
feres not  with  the  liberty  of  our  actions  ;  and  what  God  has  determined 
to  do  in  consequence,  is  made  apparent  by  what  he  actually  does,  which 
with  him  can  be  no  new,  no  sudden  thought,  but  known  and  purposed 
from  eternity,  in  the  view  of  the  actual  circumstances.  As  to  the  se- 
cond objection,  that  this  makes  his  conduct  dependent  upon  the  acts  of 
the  creature,  so  far  from  denying  it  we  may  affirm  it  to  be  one  of  the 
plainest  doctrines  of  the  word  of  God.  He  punishes  or  blesses  men 
according  to  their  conduct ;  and  he  waits  until  the  acts  of  their  sin  or 
their  obedience  take  place,  before  he  either  punishes  or  rewards.  The 
dealings  of  a  sovereign  judge  must,  in  the  nature  of  things  themselves, 
be  dependent  upon  the  conduct  of  the  subjects  over  whom  he  rules  :  they 
must  vary  according  to  that  conduct ;  and  it  is  only  in  the  principles  of 
a  righteous  government  that  we  ought  to  look,  for  that  kind  of  immuta- 
bility which  has  any  thing  in  it  of  moral  character.  Still  it  is  said,  that 
though  the  acts  of  God,  as  a  sovereign,  change,  and  are,  apparently, 
dependent  upon  the  conduct  of  creatures,  yet  that  he,  from  all  eternity, 
decreed,  or  determined  to  do  them :  as  for  instance,  to  exalt  one  nation 
and  to  abase  another ;  to  favour  tliis  individual,  or  to  punish  that ;  to 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLdGICAL    INSTITUTES.  425 

jsave  this  man,  to  destroy  the  other.  This  may  be  granted ;  but  only  in 
this  sense,  that  his  eternal  determination  or  decree  was  as  dependent  and 
consequent  upon  his  prescience  of  the  acts  wliich,  according  to  the  im- 
mutable principles  of  his  n^iture  and  government,  are  pleasing  or  hateful 
to  him,  as  the  actual  adniinistrution  of  favour  or  punishment  is  upon  the 
actual  conduct  of  men  in  time.  This  brings  on  the  question  of  decrees 
absolute  or  conditional ;  and  we  are,  happily,  not  left  to  the  reasonings 
of  men  on  this  point ;  but  have  the  light  of  the  word  of  God,  which 
abounds  with  examples  of  decrees,  to  which  cojidiiions  are  annexed,  on 
the  performance  or  neglect  of  which,  by  his  creatures,  their  execution  is 
made  dependent.  "  If  thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted  ?  but 
if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door."  If  this  was  God's  eternal 
decree  concerning  Cain,  then  it  was  plainly  conditional  from  eternity  ; 
for  his  decrees  in  time  cannot  contradict  his  decrees  from  eternity,  as  to 
the  same  persons  and  events.  But  Cain  did  "  not  well ;"  was  it  not, 
then,  says  a  Calvinist,  eternally  and  absolutely  decreed  that  he  should 
not  "  do  well  ?"  The  reply  is,  no  ;  because  this  supposed  absolute  decree 
of  the  Calvinist  would  contradict  the  revealed  decree  or  determination  of 
God,  to  put  both  the  doing  well  and  the  doing  ill  into  Cain's  own  power, 
which  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  an  absolute  decree  that  he  should  have 
it  in  his  power  only  to  do  ill ;  and  the  inevitable  conclusion,  therefore, 
is,  that  the  only  eternal  decree,  or  Divine  determination  concerning  Cain 
in  this  matter  was,  that  he  should  be  conditionally  accepted,  or  condi- 
tionally left  to  the  punishment  of  his  sins.  To  this  class  of  conditional 
decrees  belong  also  all  such  passages,  as,  "  If  ye  be  willing  and  obedi- 
ent ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land ;  but  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel  ye  shall 
be  devoured  by  the  sword."  "  If  ye  Uve  after  the  flesh  ye  shall  die ; 
but  if  ye,  through  the  Spirit,  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall 
live."  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  beheveth  not  shall 
be  damned."  This  last,  especially,  is  God's  decree  or  determination,  as 
to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel,  to  the  end  of  time.  It  professes  to  be  so  on 
the  ver}^  face  of  it,  for  its  general  and  unrestricted  nature  cannot  be  de- 
nied ;  but  if  we  are  told,  that  there  is  a  decree  affecting  numbers  of  men 
as  individuals,  by  which  God  determmed  absolutely  to  pass  them  by,  and 
to  deny  to  them  the  grace  of  faith,  such  an  allegation  cannot  be  true ; 
because  it  contradicts  the  decree  as  revealed  by  God  himself.  His  de- 
cree gives  to  all  who  hear  the  news  of  Christ's  salvation,  the  alternative 
of  believing  and  being  saved,  of  not  beheving  and  being  damned ;  but 
there  is  no  alternative  in  the  absolute  decree  of  Calvinism :  as  to  the 
reprobate,  no  one  can  believe  and  be  saved  who  is  under  such  decree : 
God  never  intended  he  should ;  andy  therefore,  he  is  put  by  one  decree 
in  one  condition,  and  by  another  decree  in  an  entirely  opposite  condi- 
tion,  which  is  an  obvious  contradiction. 

But  we  have  instances  of  the  revocation  of  God's  decrees,  as  well  as 

2 


426  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  their  conditional  character,  one  of  which  will  be  sufficient  for  illustra- 
tion. In  the  case  of  Eh,  "  I  said  indeed  that  thy  house  and  the  house 
of  thy  father  should  walk  before  me  for  ever ;  but  now  the  Lord  saith, 
be  it  far  from  me ;  for  them  that  honour  me  I  will  honour,  and  they  that 
despise  me  shall  be  lightly  esteemed."  No  passage  can  more  strongly 
refute  the  Calvinistic  notion  of  God's  immutability,  which  they  seem  to 
place  in  his  never  changing  his  purpose,  whereas,  in  fact,  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  is,  that  it  consists  in  his  never  changing  the  principles  of  his 
administration.  One  of  those  principles  is  laid  down  in  this  passage.  It 
is,  "  them  that  honour  me  I  will  honour,  and  they  that  despise  me  shall 
be  lightly  esteemed."  To  this  principle  God  is  immutably  true  ;  but  it 
was  his  unchangeable  regard  to  that  very  principle  which  brought  on 
the  change  of  his  conduct  toward  the  house  of  Eli,  and  induced  him  to 
revoke  his  former  promise.  This  is  the  only  immutability  worthy  of 
God,  or  which  can  be  reconciled  to  the  facts  of  his  government.  For 
either  the  advocate  of  absolute  predestination  must  say  that  the  promises 
and  threatenings  are  declarations  of  his  will  and  purposes,  or  they  are 
not.  If  they  are  not,  they  contradict  his  truth ;  but  if  the  point,  that 
they  do  in  fact  declare  his  will  is  conceded,  that  will  is  either  absolute 
or  conditional.  Let  us  then  try  the  case  of  Eh  by  this  alternative.  If 
the  promise  of  continuing  the  priesthood  in  the  family  of  Eh  were  abso- 
lute, then  it  could  not  be  revoked.  If  the  threatening  expressed  an  abso- 
lute and  eternal  will  and  determination  to  divert  the  priesthood  from  Eli's 
progeny,  then  the  promise  was  a  mockery ;  and  God  is  in  this,  and  all 
similar  instances,  made  to  engage  himself  to  do  what  is  contrary  to  his 
absolute  intention  and  determination  :  in  other  words,  he  makes  no  en- 
gagement in  fact,  while  he  seems  to  do  it  in  form,  which  involves  a 
charge  against  the  Divine  Being  which  few  Calvinists  would  be  bold 
enough  to  maintain.  But  if  these  declarations  to  Eli  be  regarded  as 
the  expressions  of  a  determination  always  taken,  in  the  mind  of  God, 
under  the  conditions  implied  in  the  fixed  principles  of  bis  government, 
then  the  language  and  the  acts  of  God  harmonize  with  his  sincerity  and 
faithfulness,  and,  instead  of  throwing  a  shade  over  his  moral  attributes, 
illustrate  his  immutable  regard  to  those  wise,  equitable,  and  holy  rules 
by  which  he  conducts  his  government  of  moral  agents.  Nor  will  the 
distinction  which  some  Calvinists  have  endeavoured  to  establish  between 
the  promises  and  threatenings  of  God  and  his  decrees,  sen^e  them ;  for 
where  is  it  to  be  found  except  in  their  own  imagination  ?  We  have  no 
intimation  of  such  a  distinction  in  Scripture,  which,  nevertheless,  pro- 
fesses to  reveal  the  eternal  ^^ purpose'^  and  "counsel"  of  God  on  those 
matters  to  which  his  promises  and  threatenings  relate, — the  salvation  or 
destruction  of  men.  That  counsel  and  purpose  has,  also,  no  manifesta- 
tion in  his  word,  but  by  promises  and  threatenings ;  these  make  up  its 
whole  substance,  and,  therefore,  in  order  to  make  their  distinction  good . 
2 


SSCOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  427 

those  who  Iiold  it  must  discover  a  distinction  not  only  between  God's 
promises  and  threatenings  and  his  decrees;  but  between  the  eternal 
"  counsels  and  purposes"  of  God  and  his  decrees,  which  they  acknow- 
ledge  to  be  identical. 

The  fallacy  which  seems  to  mislead  them  appears  to  be  the  follow- 
ing :  They  allege  that  of  two  consequences,  say  the  obedience  or  diso- 
bedience of  Eli's  house,  we  acknowledge,  on  both  sides,  that  one  will 
happen.  That  which  actually  happens  we  also  see  taken  up  into  the 
course  of  the  Divine  administration,  and  made  a  part  of  his  subsequent 
plan  of  government,  as  the  transfer  of  the  priesthood  from  the  house  of 
Eli :  they,  therefore,  argue  that  the  Divine  Being,  having  his  plan  before 
him,  and  this  very  circumstance  entering  into  it,  it  was  fixed  from  eter- 
nity as  a  part  of  that  general  scheme  by  which  the  purposes  of  God 
were  to  be  accompHshed,  and  which  would  have  been  uncertain  and  un- 
arranged  but  for  this  preordination.     The  answer  to  this  is, 

1.  That  the  circumstance  of  an  event  being  taken  up  into  the  Divine 
administration,  and  being  made  use  of  to  work  out  God's  purposes,  is 
no  proof  that  he  willed  and  decreed  it.  He  could  not  will  the  wicked- 
ness  of  Eli's  sons,  and  could  not,  therefore,  ordain  and  appoint  it,  or  his 
decrees  would  be  contrary  to  his  will.  The  making  use  of  the  result 
of  the  choice  of  a  free  agent,  only  proves  that  it  was  foreseen,  and  that 
there  are,  so  to  speak,  infinite  resources  in  the  Divine  mind  to  turn  the 
actions  of  men  into  the  accomplishment  of  his  plans,  without  either 
willing  them  when  they  are  evil,  or  imposing  fetters  upon  their  freedom. 

2.  That  though  an  event  be  interwoven  with  the  course  of  the  Divine 
government,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  necessary  to  it.  The  ends 
of  a  course  of  administration  might  have  been  otherwise  accomplished ; 
as,  in  the  case  before  us,  if  Eli's  house  had  remained  faithful,  and  the  family 
of  Zadok  had  not  been  chosen  in  its  stead.  The  general  plan  of  God's 
government  does  not,  therefore,  necessarily  include  every  event  which 
happens  as  a  necessary  part  of  its  accomphshment,  since  the  same  results 
might,  in  many  cases,  have  been  brought  out  of  other  events ;  and, 
therefore,  it  cannot  be  conclusively  argued,  that  as  God  wills  the  accom- 
phshment  of  the  general  plan,  he  must  will  in  the  same  manner  the  par- 
ticular events  which  he  may  overrule  to  contribute  to  it.     But, 

3.  As  to  the  general  plan,  it  is  also  an  unfounded  assumption,  that  it 
was  the  subject  of  an  absolute  determination.  From  this  has  2U'isen  the 
notion  that  the  fall  of  Adam  was  willed  and  decreed  by  God.  To  this 
doctrine,  which,  for  the  sake  of  a  metaphysical  speculation,  draws  after  it 
so  many  abhorrent  and  antiscriptural  consequences,  we  must  demur. 
God  could  not  will  that  event  actively  without  willing  sin :  he  could 
not  absolutely  decree  it  without  removing  all  responsibility,  and,  there- 
fore, all  fault  from  the  first  oflfender.  If  God  be  holy,  he  could  not  will 
Adam's  offence,  though  he  might  determine  not  to  prevent  it  by  inter- 


428  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

fering  with  man's  freedom,  which  is  a  very  different  case ;  and  if  in 
guarding  liis  law  from  violation  by  a  severe  sanction,  he  proceeded  with 
sincerity,  he  could  not  appoint  its  violation.  We  may  confidently  say, 
that  he  willed  the  contrary  of  Adam's  offence ;  and  that  he  used  all  means 
consistent  with  his  determination  to  give  and  maintain  free  agency  to 
his  creatures,  to  secure  the  accomplishment  of  that  will.  It  was  against 
his  will,  therefore,  that  our  progenitors  sinned  and  fell ;  and  his  "  pur- 
pose"  and  "  counsel,"  or  his  decree,  if  the  term  please  better,  to  govern 
the  world  according  to  the  principles  and  mode  now  in  operation,  was 
dependent  upon  an  event  which  he  willed  not ;  but  which,  as  being 
foreseen,  was  the  plan  he  in  wisdom,  justice,  and  mercy,  adopted  in 
the  view  of  this  contingency.  And  suppose  we  were  to  acknowledge 
with  some,  that  the  result  will  be  more  glorious  to  him,  and  more  bene- 
ficial to  the  universe,  through  the  wisdom  with  which  he  overrules  all 
things,  than  if  Adam  and  his  descendants  had  stood  in  their  innocency, 
it  will  not  follow,  even  from  this,  that  the  present  was  that  order  of 
events  which  God  absolutely  ordered  and  decreed.  We  are  told,  indeed, 
that  if  this  was  the  best  of  possible  plans,  God  was,  by  the  perfection  of 
his  nature,  bound  to  choose  it ;  and  that  if  he  chose  it,  his  will,  in  this 
respect,  made  all  the  rest  necessary.  But,  to  say  nothing  of  the  pre- 
sumption of  determining  what  God  was  bound  to  do  in  any  hypothetic 
case,  the  position  that  God  must  choose  the  best  of  possible  plans  is  to 
be  taken  with  qualification.  We  can  neither  prove  that  the  state  of 
things  which  shall  actually  issue  is  the  best  among  those  possible  ;  nor 
that  among  possible  systems  there  can  be  a  hest,  since  they  are  all 
composed  of  created  things,  and  no  system  can  actually  exist,  to  which 
the  Creator,  who  is  infinite  in  power,  could  not  add  something.  Were 
no  sin  involved  in  the  case  it  would  be  clearer ;  but  it  is  not  only  un- 
supported by  any  declaration  of  Scripture,  but  certainly  contrary  to 
many  of  its  principles,  to  assume  that  God  originally,  so  to  speak,  and, 
in  the  first  instance,  willed  and  decreed  a  state  of  tilings  which  should 
necessarily  include  the  introduction  of  moral  evil  into  his  creation,  in 
order  to  manifest  his  glory,  and  work  out  future  good  to  the  creature ; 
l^ecause  we  know  that  sin  is  that  "  abominable  thing"  which  he  hateth. 
A  monarch  is  surely  not  bound  secretly  to  appoint  and  decree  the  cir- 
cumstances which  must  necessarily  lead  to  a  rebelhon,  in  order  that  his 
clemency  may  be  more  fully  manifested  in  pardoning  the  rebels,  or  the 
strength  of  his  government  displayed  in  their  subjugation ;  although  his 
subjects,  upon  the  whole,  might  derive  some  higher  benefit.  We  may, 
therefore,  conclude  that  God  willed  with  perfect  truth  and  sincerity  that 
man  should  not  fall,  although  he  resolved  not  to  prevent  that  fall  by 
interfering  with  his  freedom,  which  would  have  changed  the  whole  cha- 
racter of  his  government  toward  rational  creatures ;  and  that  his  plan, 
or  decree,  to  govern  the  world  upon  the  principle  of  redemption  and 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  429 

mediation  was  no  absolute  ordination,  but  conditional  upon  man's 
offence ;  and  was  an  "  eternal  purpose,"  only  in  the  eternal  foresight 
of  the  actual  occurrence  of  the  fall  of  man,  which  yet,  it  is  no  contra- 
diction to  say,  was  against  his  will. 

So  fallacious  are  all  such  notions  as  to  God's  fixed  plans.  Fixed  they 
may  be,  without  being  absolutely  decreed ;  because  fixed,  in  reference 
to  what  takes  place,  even  in  opposition  to  his  will  and  intention ;  and 
as  to  the  argument  drawn  by  Calvinists  from  the  perfections  of  God,  it 
is  surely  a  more  honourable  view  of  him  to  suppose  that  his  will  and 
his  promulgated  law  accord  and  consent,  than  that  they  are  in  opposi- 
tion to  each  other ;  more  honourable  to  him,  that  he  is  immutable  in 
his  adherence  to  the  principles,  rather  than  in  the  acts  of  government ; 
more  honourable  to  him,  that  he  can  make  the  conduct  of  his  free 
creatures  to  work  out  either  his  original  purposes,  or  purposes  more 
glorious  to  himself  and  beneficial  to  the  universe,  than  that  he  should 
frame  plans  so  fixed  as  to  have  no  reference  to  the  free  actions  of  crea- 
tures, whom,  by  a  strange  contradiction,  he  is  represented  as  still  holding 
accountable  for  their  conduct ;  plans  which  all  these  creatures  shall  be 
necessitated  to  fulfil,  so  as  to  be  capable  of  no  other  course  of  action 
whatever,  or  else  that  his  government  must  become  loose  and  uncertain. 
This  is,  indeed,  to  have  low  thoughts,  even  of  the  infinite  wisdom  of 
God  ;  and  either  involves  his  justice  and  truth  in  deep  obscurity,  or 
presents  them  to  us  under  very  equivocal  aspects.  Which  of  these 
views  is  the  most  consonant  with  the  Bible,  may  be  safely  left  with  the 
candid  reader. 

The  PRESCIENCE  OF  God  is  also  a  subject  by  which  Calvinists  have 
endeavoured  to  give  some  plausibility  to  their  system.  The  argument 
as  popularly  stated,  has  been,  that,  as  the  destruction  or  salvation  of 
every  individual  is  foreseen,  it  is,  therefore,  certain,  and,  as  certain,  it 
is  inevitable  and  necessary.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  certainty  and 
necessity  are  not  at  all  connected  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  are,  in 
fact,  two  perfectly  distinct  predicaments.  Certainty  has  no  relation  to 
an  event  at  all  as  evitable  or  inevitable,  free  or  compelled,  contingent  or 
necessary.  It  relates  only  to  the  issue  itself,  the  act  of  any  agent,  not 
to  the  quality  of  the  act  or  event  with  reference  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  is  produced.  A  free  action  is  as  much  an  event  as  a 
necessitated  one,  and,  therefore,  is  as  truly  an  object  of  foresight,  which 
foresight  cannot  change  the  nature  of  the  action,  or  of  the  process 
through  which  it  issues,  because  the  simple  knowledge  of  an  action^ 
whether  present,  past,  or  to  come,  has  no  influence  upon  it  of  any  kind. 
Certainty  is,  in  fact,  no  quality  of  an  action  at  all ;  it  exists,  properly 
speaking,  in  the  mind  foreseeing,  and  not  in  the  action  foreseen ;  but 
freedom  or  constraint,  contingency  or  necessity  qualify  the  action  itself, 
and  determine  its  nature,  and  the  rewardableness,  or  punitive  demerit 

2 


430  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  the  agent.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said,  that  what  God  foresees, 
will  certainly  happen,  nothing  more  can  be  reasonably  meant,  than  that 
HE  is  certain  that  it  will  happen ;  so  that  we  must  not  transfer  the  cer- 
tainty  from  God  to  the  action  itself,  in  the  false  sense  of  necessity,  or, 
indeed,  in  any  sense  ;  for  the  certainty  is  in  the  Divine  mind,  and  stands 
there  opposed,  not  to  the  contingency  of  the  action,  but  to  doubtfulness 
as  to  his  own  prescience  of  the  result.  There  is  this  certainty  in  the 
Divine  mind  as  to  the  actions  of  men,  that  they  will  happen :  but  that 
they  must  happen  cannot  follow  from  this  circumstance.  If  they  must 
happen,  they  are  under  some  control  which  prevents  a  different  result ; 
but  the  most  certain  knowledge  has  nothing  in  it  which,  from  its  nature, 
can  control  an  action  in  any  way,  unless  it  should  lead  the  being  endow- 
ed with  it,  to  adopt  measures  to  influence  the  action,  and  then  it  be- 
comes a  question,  not  of  foreknowledge,  but  of  power  and  influence, 
which  wholly  changes  the  case.  This  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  the  popu- 
lar manner  of  stating  the  argument.  The  scholastic  method  requires  a 
little  more  illustration. 

The  knowledge  of  possible  things,  as  existing  from  all  eternity  in  the 
Divine  understanding,  has  been  termed  "scientia  simplicis  intelligen- 
ticR,^^  or  by  the  schoolmen,  "  scientia  indeflnita,"  as  not  determining  the 
existence  of  any  thing.  The  knowledge  which  God  had  of  all  real  ex- 
istences is  termed  "  scientia  visionis,''^  and  by  the  schoolmen,  "  scientia 
deflnita,^^  because  the  existence  of  all  objects  of  this  knowledge  is  de- 
terminate and  certain.  To  these  distinctions  another  was  added  by 
those  who  rejected  the  predestinarian  hypothesis,  to  which  they  gave 
the  name  "  scientia  media"  as  being  supposed  to  stand  in  the  middle 
between  the  two  former.  By  this  is  understood,  the  knowledge,  neither 
of  things  as  possible,  nor  of  events  appointed  and  decreed  by  God ;  but 
of  events  which  are  to  happen  upon  certain  conditions.  (3) 

The  third  kind  of  knowledge,  or  scientia  media,  might  very  well  be 
included  in  the  second,  since  scientia  visionis  ought  to  include  not  what 
God  will  do,  and  what  his  creatures  will  do  under  his  appointment,  but 
what  they  will  do  by  his  permission  as  free  agents,  and  what  he  will  do, 
as  a  consequence  of  this,  in  his  character  of  Governor  and  Lord.  But 
since  the  predestinarians  had  confounded  scientia  visionis  with  a  pre- 
destinating decree,  the  scientia  media  well  expressed  what  they  had  left 

(3)  "  Ordo  autem  hie  ut  recte  intelligi  possit,  observandum  est  triplicem  Deo 
scientiam  tribui  solere  :  unam  necessariam,  quae  omnem  voluntatis  liberae  actum 
naturae  ordine  antecedit,  quae  etiam  practica  et  simplicis  intelligentics  dici  potest, 
qua  seipsum  et  alia  omnia  possibilia  intelligit.  Alteram  liberam,  quoe  consequitur 
actum  voluntatis  libersB,  quae  etiam  visionis  dici  potest ;  qua  Deus  omnia,  quee 
facere  et  permittere  decrevit  ita  distincte  novit,  uti  ea  fieri  et  permittere  voluit. 
Tertiam  mediam,  qua  sub  conditione  novit  quid  homines  aut  angeli  facturi  essent 
pro  sua  libertate,  si  cum  his  aut  illis  circumstantiis,  in  hoc  vel  in  illo  rerum 
ordme,  constituerentur,"  (Disputat.  Episcopii.  part  i,  disp.  v.) 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  431 

quite  unaccounted  for,  and  which  they  had  assumed  did  not  really  exist, — 
the  actions  of  creatures  endowed  with  free  will,  and  the  acts  of  Deity 
which  frona  eternity  were  consequent  upon  them.  If  such  actions  do 
not  take  place,  then  men  are  not  free  ;  and  if  the  rectoral  acts  of  God 
are  not  consequent  upon  the  actions  of  the  creature  in  the  order  of  the 
Divine  intention,  and  the  conduct  of  the  creature  is  consequent  upon  the 
foreordained  rectoral  acts  of  God,  then  we  reach  a  necessitating  eter- 
nal decree,  which,  in  fact,  the  predestinarian  contends  for :  but  it  unfor- 
tunately brings  after  it  consequences  which  no  subtilties  have  ever  been 
able  to  shake  off, — that  the  only  actor  in  the  universe  is  God  himself; 
and  that  the  only  distinction  among  events  is,  that  one  class  is  brought 
to  pass  by  God  directly,  and  the  other  indirectly ;  not  by  the  agency,  but 
by  the  mere  instrumentality  of  his  creatures. 

The  manner  in  which  absolute  predestination  is  made  identical  with 
scientia  visionis,  will  be  best  illustrated  by  an  extract  from  the  writings  of  a 
tolerably  fair  and  temperate  modern  Calvinist.  Speaking  of  the  two  dis- 
tinctions, scientia  simplicis  intelligenticB  and  scientia  visionis^  he  says, — 

"Those  who  consider  all  the  objects  of  knowledge  as  comprehended 
under  one  or  other  of  the  kinds  that  have  been  explained,  are  naturdly 
conducted  to  that  enlarged  conception  of  the  extent  of  the  Divine  de- 
cree, from  which  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination  unavoidably 
follows.  The  Divine  decree  is  the  determination  of  the  Divine  mil  to 
produce  the  universe,  that  is,  the  whole  series  of  beings  and  events 
that  were  then  future.  The  parts  of  this  series  arise  in  succession  ; 
but  all  were,  from  eternity,  present  to  the  Divine  mind  ;  and  no  cause 
was,  at  any  time,  to  operate,  or  no  effect  that  was  at  any  time  to  be  pro- 
duced in  the  universe,  can  be  excluded  from  the  original  decree,  with- 
out supposing  that  the  decree  was  at  first  imperfect  and  afterward 
received  accessions.  The  determination  to  produce  this  world,  under- 
standing by  that  word  the  whole  combination  of  beings,  and  causes,  and 
effects,  that  were  to  come  into  existence,  arose  out  of  the  view  of  all 
possible  worlds,  and  proceeded  upon  reasons  to  us  unsearchable,  by 
which  this  world  that  now  exists  appeared  to  the  Divine  wisdom  the 
fittest  to  be  produced.  I  say,  the  determination  to  produce  this  world 
proceeded  upon  reasons  ;  because  we  must  suppose,  that  in  forming  the 
decrees,  a  choice  was  exerted,  that  the  Supreme  Being  was  at  liberty 
to  resolve  either  that  he  would  create  or  that  he  would  not  create  ;  that 
he  would  give  his  work  this  form  or  that  form,  as  he  chose  ;  otherwise 
we  withdraw  from  the  Supreme  InteUigence,  and  subject  all  things  to 
blind  fatality.  But  if  a  choice  was  exerted  in  forming  the  decree,  the 
choice  must  have  proceeded  upon  reasons  ;  for  a  choice  made  by  a  wise 
Being,  without  any  ground  of  choice,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  as  nothing  then  existed  but 
the  Supreme  Being,  the  only  reason  which   could  determine  him  in 

2 


432  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

choosing  what  he  was  to  produce,  was  its  appearing  to  him  fitter  for 
accomphshing  the  end  which  he  proposed  to  himself  than  any  thing 
else  whicli  he  might  have  produced.  Hence  scientia  vishnis  is  called 
by  theologians  scientia  libera.  To  scientia  simplicis  intelligentitB,  they 
gave  the  epithet  naturalis,  because  the  knowledge  of  all  things  possible 
arises  necessarily  from  the  nature  of  the  Supreme  mind  ;  but  to  scientia 
vinonis  they  gave  the  epithet  libera,  because  the  qualities  and  extent 
of  its  objects  are  determined,  not  by  any  necessity  of  nature,  but  by  the 
will  of  the  Deity.  Although  in  forming  the  Divine  decree  there  was  a 
choice  of  this  world,  proceeding  upon  a  representation  of  all  possible 
worlds,  it  is  not  to  be  conceived,  that  there  was  any  interval  between 
the  choice  and  representation,  or  any  succession  in  the  parts  of  the 
choice.  In  the  Divine  mind  there  was  an  intuitive  view  of  that  immense 
subject,  which  it  is  not  only  impossible  for  our  minds  to  comprehend  at 
once,  but  in  travelling  through  the  parts  of  which  we  are  instantly 
bewildered  ;  and  one  decree,  embracing  at  once  the  end  and  means, 
ordained  with  perfect  wisdom  all  that  was  to  be. 

"  The  condition  of  the  human  race  entered  into  this  decree.  It  is 
not,  perhaps,  the  most  important  part  of  it  when  we  speak  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  universe,  but  it  is  a  part  which,  even  were  it  more  insignifi- 
cant than  it  is,  could  not  be  overlooked  by  the  Almighty,  whose  atten- 
tion extends  to  all  his  works,  and  which  appears,  by  those  dispensations 
of  his  providence  that  have  been  made  known  to  us,  to  be  interesting 
in  his  eyes.  A  decree  respecting  the  condition  of  the  human  race 
includes  the  history  of  every  individual :  the  time  of  his  appearing  upon 
the  earth ;  the  manner  of  his  existence  while  he  is  an  inhabitant  of  the 
earth,  as  it  is  diversified  by  the  actions  which  he  performs,  and  by 
the  events,  whether  prosperous  or  calamitous,  which  befall  him,  and  the 
manner  of  his  existence  after  he  leaves  the  earth,  that  is,  future  happi- 
ness or  miser)-'.  A  decree  respecting  the  condition  of  the  human  race 
also  includes  the  relations  of  the  individuals  to  one  another :  it  fixes 
their  connections  in  society,  which  have  a  great  influence  upon  their 
happiness  and  their  improvement ;  and  it  must  be  conceived  as  extend- 
ing to  the  important  events  recorded  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  whole 
species  have  a  concern.  Of  this  kind  is  the  sin  of  our  first  parents, 
the  consequence  of  that  sin  reaching  to  all  their  posterity,  the  mediation 
of  Jesus  Christ  appointed  by  God  as  a  remedy  for  these  consequences, 
the  final  salvation,  through  his  mediation,  of  one  part  of  the  descendants 
of  Adam,  and  the  final  condemnation  of  another  part,  notwithstanding 
the  remedy.  These  events  arise  at  long  intervals  of  time,  by  a  gradual 
preparation  of  circumstances,  and  the  operation  of  various  means.  But 
by  the  Creator,  to  whose  mind  the  end  and  means  were  at  once  pre- 
sent, these  events  were  beheld  in  intimate  connection  with  one  another, 
and  in  conjunction  with  many  other  events  to  us  unknown,  and  conse- 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  433 

quently  all  of  them,  however  far  removed  from  one  another  as  to  the 
time  of  their  actual  existence,  were  comprehended  in  that  one  decree  by 
which  he  determined  to  produce  the  world."  {HilVs  Lectures^  vol.  iii, 
page  38.) 

Now  some  things  in  this  statement  may  be  granted ;  as  for  instance, 
that  when  the  choice,  speaking  after  the  manner  of  men,  was  between 
creating  the  world  and  not  creating  it,  it  appeared  fitter  to  God 
to  create  than  not  to  create  ;  and  that  all  actual  events  were  foreseen^ 
and  will  take  place,  so  far  as  they  are  future,  as  they  are  foreseen ;  but 
where  is  the  connection  between  these  points,  and  that  absolute  decree 
which  in  this  passage  is  taken  for  either  the  same  thing  as  foreseeing, 
or  as  necessarily  involved  in  it  ?  "  The  Divine  decree,"  says  Dr.  Hill, 
"is  the  determination  of  the  Divine  will  to  produce  the  universe,  that  is, 
the  zvhole  series  of  beixgs  and  events  that  were  then  future."  If  so, 
it  follows,  that  it  was  the  Divine  will  to  prodiLce  the  fall  of  man,  as  well 
as  his  creation  ;  the  offences  which  made  redemption  necessary,  as  the 
redemption  itself:  to  produce  the  destruction  of  human  beings,  and 
their  vices  which  are  the  means  of  that  destruction  ;  the  salvation  of 
another  part  of  the  race,  and  their  faith  and  obedience,  as  the  means  of 
that  salvation  : — for  by  "  one  decree,  embracing  at  once  the  end  and  Uie 
means  J  he  ordained,  with  perfect  wisdom,  all  that  was  to  be."  This  is 
in  the  true  character  of  the  Calvinistic  theology ;  it  dogmatizes  with 
absolute  confidence  on  some  metaphysical  assumption,  and  forgets  for 
the  time,  that  any  such  book  as  the  Bible,  a  revelation  of  God,  by  God 
himself,  exists  in  the  world.  If  the  determination  of  the  Divine  will^ 
with  respect  to  the  creation  of  man,  were  the  same  kind  of  determina- 
tion as  that  which  respected  his  fall,  how  then  are  we  to  account  for 
the  means  taken  by  God  to  prevent  the  fall,  which  were  no  less  than 
the  communication  of  an  upright  and  perfect  nature  to  man,  from  which 
his  ability  to  stand  in  his  uprightness  arose,  and  the  threatening  of  the 
greatest  calamity,  death,  in  order  to  deter  him  from  the  act  of  offence  ? 
How,  in  that  case,  are  we  to  account  for  the  declarations  of  God's 
hatred  to  sin,  and  for  his  own  express  declaration  that  "  he  willeth  not 
the  death  of  him  that  dieth  ?"  How,  for  the  obstructions  he  has  placed 
in  the  way  of  transgression,  which  would  be  obstructions  to  his  own 
determinations,  if  they  can  be  allowed  to  be  obstructions  at  all  ?  How, 
for  the  intercession  of  Christ  ?  How,  for  his  tears  shed  over  Jerusa- 
lem ?  Finally,  how,  for  the  declaration  that  "  he  willeth  all  men  to  be 
saved,"  and  for  his  invitations  to  all,  and  the  promises  made  to  all  ? 
Here  the  discrepancies  between  the  metaphysical  scheme  and  the  writ- 
ten word  are  most  strongly  marked  ;  are  so  totally  irreconcilable  to  each 
other,  as  to  leave  us  to  choose  between  the  speculations  of  man,  as  to 
the  operations  of  the  Divine  mind,  and  the  declared  will  of  God  him- 
self.     The  fact  is,  that  Scripture  can  only  be  interpreted  by  denying 

Vol.  n.  28 


434  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  the  determination  of  the  Divine  will  is,  as  to  '^beings  and  events" 
the  same  kind  of  determination ;  and  we  are  necessarily  brought  back 
again  to  the  only  distinction  which  is  compatible  with  the  written  word, 
a  determination  in  God  to  do,  and  a  determination  to  permit.  For  if 
we  admit  that  the  decree  to  effect  or  produce  is  absolute,  both  "  as  to  the 
end  and  means,"  then,  beside  the  consequences  which  follow  as  above 
stated,  and  which  so  directly  contradict  the  testimony  of  God  himself, 
another  equally  revolting  also  arises,  namely,  that  as  the  end  decreed 
is,  as  we  are  told,  most  glorious  to  God,  so  the  means,  being  controlled 
and  directed  to  that  end,  are  necessarily  and  directly  connected  with  the 
glorification  of  God  ;  and  so  men  glorify  God  by  their  vices,  because  by 
them  they  fulfil  his  will,  and  work  out  his  designs  according  to  the 
appointment  of  his  "  wisdom."  That  this  has  been  boldly  contended 
for  by  leading  Calvinistic  divines  in  former  times,  and  by  some,  though 
of  a  lower  class,  in  the  present  day,  is  well  known :  and  that  they  are 
consistent  in  their  deductions  from  the  above  premises,  is  so  obvious, 
that  it  is  matter  of  surprise,  that  those  Calvinists  who  are  shocked  at 
this  conclusion  should  not  either  suspect  the  principles  from  which  it  so 
certainly  flows,  or  that,  admitting  the  doctrine,  they  should  shun  the 
explicit  avowal  of  the  inevitable  consequence. 

The  sophistry  of  the  above  statement  of  the  Calvinistic  view  of  pre- 
science and  the  decrees,  as  given  by  Dr.  Hill,  lies  in  this,  that  the  de- 
termination of  the  Divine  will  to  produce  the  universe  is  made  to  include 
a  determination  as  absolute  "  to  produce  the  whole  series  of  beings  and 
events  that  were  then  future  ;"  and  in  assuming  that  this  is  involved  in 
a  perfect  prescience  of  things,  as  actually  to  exist  and  take  place.  But 
among  the  "  beings"  to  be  produced,  were  not  only  beings  bound  by 
their  instincts,  and  by  circumstances  which  they  could  not  control,  to 
act  in  some  given  manner ;  but  also  beings  endowed  with  such  freedom 
that  they  might  act  in  different  and  opposite  ways,  as  their  own  will 
might  determine.  Either  this  must  be  allowed  or  denied.  If  it  is  de- 
nied, then  man  is  not  a  free  agent,  and,  therefore,  not  accountable  for 
his  personal  offences,  if  offences  those  acts  can  be  called,  to  the  doing 
of  which  there  is  "  a  determination  of  the  Divine  will,"  of  the  same 
nature  as  to  the  "  producing  of  the  universe"  itself.  This,  however,  is 
so  destructive  of  the  nature  of  virtue  and  vice  ;  it  so  entirely  subverts 
the  moral  government  of  God  by  merging  it  into  his  natural  government ; 
and  it  so  manifestly  contradicts  the  word  of  God,  which,  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end,  supposes  a  power  bestowed  on  man  to  avoid  sin,  and  on 
this  establishes  his  accountableness ;  that,  with  all  these  fatal  conse- 
quences hanging  upon  it,  we  may  leave  this  notion  to  its  own  fate.  But 
if  any  such  freedom  be  allowed  to  man,  (either  actually  enjoyed  or 
placed  within  his  reach  by  the  use  of  means  which  are  within  his  power,) 
that  he  may  both  will  and  act  differently,  in  any  given  case,  from  his 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  435 

ultimate  volitions  and  the  acts  resulting  thereffom,  then  cannot  that 
which  he  actually  does,  as  a  free  agent,  say  some  sinful  act,  have  been 
*'  determined"  in  the  same  manner  by  the  Divine  will,  as  the  "  produc 
tion"  of  the  universe  and  the  "  beings"  which  compose  it.  For  if  man 
is  a  being  free  to  sin  or  not  to  sin ;  and  it  was  the  "  determination  of 
the  Divine  will"  to  produce  such  a  being  ;  it  was  his  determination  to 
give  to  him  this  liberty  of  not  doing  that  which  actually  he  does ;  which 
is  wholly  contrary  to  a  determination  that  he  should  act  in  one  given 
manner,  and  in  that  alone.  For  here,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  alleged 
that  the  Divine  will  absolutely  determines  t©  produce  certain  "  events," 
and  yet  on  the  other  it  is  plain  that  he  absolutely  determined  to  produce 
"  beings"  who  should,  by  his  will  and  consequent  endowment,  have  in 
themselves  the  power  to  produce  contrary  events ;  propositions  which 
manifestly  fight  with  each  other,  and  cannot  both  be  true.  We  must 
either,  then,  give  up  man's  free  agency  and  true  accountability,  or  this 
absolute  determination  of  events.  The  former  cannot  be  renounced 
without  involving  the  consequences  above  stated ;  and  the  abandoning 
of  the  latter  brings  us  to  the  only  conclusion  which  agrees  with  the 
word  of  God, — that  the  acts  of  free  agents  are  not  determined,  hut  fore- 
seen and  permitted  ;  and  are  thus  taken  up,  not  as  the  acts  of  God,  but 
as  the  acts  of  men,  into  the  Divine  government.  "Ye  devised  evil 
against  me,"  says  Joseph  to  his  brethren,  "  but  God  meant  it  for  good." 
Thus  the  principle  which  vitiates  Dr.  Hill's  statement  is  detected.  Gro- 
tius  has  much  better  observed,  "  When  we  say  that  God  is  the  cause  of 
all  things,  we  mean  of  all  such  things  as  have  a  real  existence ;  which 
is  no  reason  why  those  things  themselves  should  not  be  the  cause  of 
some  accidents,  such  as  actions  are.  God  created  men,  and  some  other 
intelligences  superior  to  man,  with  a  liberty  of  acting ;  which  liberty 
of  acting  is  not  in  itself  evil,  but  may  be  the  cause  of  something  that  is 
evil ;  and  to  make  God  the  author  of  evils  of  this  kind,  which  are  called 
moral  evils,  is  the  highest  wickedness."  (Truth  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion, s.  8.) 

Perhaps  the  notions  which  Calvinists  form  as  to  the  will  may  be 
regarded  as  a  consequence  of  the  predestinarian  branch  of  their  system  ; 
but  whether  they  are  among  the  metaphysical  sources  of  their  error,  or 
consequents  upon  it,  they  may  here  have  a  brief  notice. 

If  the  doctrine  just  refuted  were  allowed,  namely,  that  all  events  are 
produced  by  the  determination  of  the  Divine  will ;  and  that  the  end  and 
means  are  bound  up  in  "  one  decree  ;"  the  predestinarian  had  sagacity 
enough  to  discern  that  the  volitions,  as  well  as  the  acts  of  men,  must  be 
placed  equally  under  bondage,  to  make  the  scheme  consistent ;  and,  that 
whenever  any  moral  action  is  the  end  proposed,  the  choice  of  the  will, 
as  the  means  to  that  end,  must  come  under  the  same  appointment  and 
determination.     It  is,  indeed,  not  denied,  that  creatures  may  lose  the 

2 


436  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

power  to  will  that  which  is  morally  good.  Such  is  the  state  of  devils ; 
and  such  would  have  been  the  state  of  man,  had  he  been  left  wholly  to 
the  consequences  of  the  fall.  The  inability  is,  however,  not  a  natural, 
but  a  moral  one  ;  for  volition,  as  a  power  of  the  mind,  is  not  destroyed, 
but  brought  so  completely  under  the  dominion  of  a  corrupt  nature,  as  not 
to  be  morally  capable  of  choosing  any  thing  but  evil.  If  man  is  not  in 
this  condition,  it  is  owing,  not  to  the  remains  of  original  goodness,  as 
some  suppose,  but  to  that  "  grace  of  God"  which  is  the  result  of  the  "  free 
gift"  bestowed  upon  all  men ;  but  that  the  power  to  choose  that  which 
is  good,  in  some  respects,  and  as  a  first  step  to  the  entire  and  exclu- 
sive choice  of  good  in  the  highest  degree,  is  in  man's  possession,  must 
be  certainly  concluded  from  the  calls  so  often  made  upon  him  in  the 
word  of  God  to  change  his  conduct,  and,  in  order  to  this,  his  will. 
"Hear,  ye  deaf,  and  see,  ye  blind,"  is  the  exhortation  of  a  prophet, 
which,  while  it  charges  both  spiritual  deafness  and  blindness  upon  the 
Jews,  supposes  a  power  existing  in  them  both  of  opening  the  eyes,  and 
unstopping  the  ears.  Such  are  all  the  exhortations  to  repentance  and 
faith  addressed  to  sinners,  and  the  threatenings  consequent  upon  con- 
tinued impenitence  and  unbelief;  which  equally  suppose  a  power  of 
considering,  willing,  and  acting,  in  all  things  adequate  to  the  commence- 
ment of  a  religious  course.  From  whatever  source  it  may  be  derived, 
and  no  other  can  be  assigned  to  it  consistently  with  the  Scriptures  than 
the  grace  of  God,  this  power  must  be  experienced  to  the  full  extent  of 
the  call  and  the  obligation  to  these  duties.  A  power  of  choosing  only 
to  do  evil,  and  of  remaining  impenitent,  cannot  be  reconciled  to  such 
exhortations.  This  would  but  be  a  mockeiy  of  men,  and  a  mere  show  of 
equitable  government  on  the  part  of  God,  without  any  thing  correspond- 
ent to  this  appearance  of  equity  in  point  of  fact.  The  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine,  however,  takes  another  course.  As  the  sin  and  the  destruction 
of  the  reprobate  is  determined  by  the  decree,  and  their  will  is  either  left 
to  its  natural  proneness  to  the  choice  of  evil,  or  is,  by  coaction,  impelled 
to  it ;  so  the  salvation  of  the  elect  being  absolutely  decreed,  the  will,  at 
the  appointed  time,  comes  under  an  irresistible  impulse  which  carries  it  to 
the  choice  of  good.  Nor  is  this  only  an  occasional  influence,  leaving 
men  afterward,  or  by  intervals,  to  freedom  of  choice,  which  might 
be  allowed ;  but,  in  all  cases,  and  at  all  times,  the  will,  when  directed 
to  good,  moves  only  under  the  unfrustrable  impulses  of  grace.  That 
man,  therefore,  has  no  choice,  or  at  least  no  alternative  in  either  case, 
is  the  doctrine  assumed  ;  and  no  other  view  can  be  consistently  taken 
by  those  who  admit  the  scheme  of  absolute  predestination.  To  one  class 
of  objects  is  the  will  determined ;  no  other  being,  in  either  case,  possible  ; 
and  thus  one  course  of  action,  fulfiUing  the  decree  of  God,  is  the  only 
possible  result,  or  the  decree  would  not  be  absolute  and  fixed. 

Some  Calvinists  have  adopted  all  the  consequences  which  follow  this 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  437 

view  of  the  subject.  They  ascribe  the  actions  and  voUtions  of  man  to 
God,  and  regard  sinful  men  as  impelled  to  a  necessity  of  sinning,  in  order 
to  the  infliction  of  that  punishment  which  they  think  will  glorify  the  sove- 
reign wrath  of  him  who  made  "  the  wicked"  intentionally  "  for  the  day 
of  evil."  Enough  has  been  said  in  refutation  of  this  gross  and  blasphem- 
ous  opinion,  which,  though  it  inevitably  follows  from  absolute  predestina- 
tion, the  more  modest  writers  of  the  same  school  have  endeavoured  to 
hide  under  various  guises,  or  to  reconcile  to  some  show  of  justice  by 
various  subtilties. 

It  has,  for  instance,  been  contended,  that  as  in  the  case  of  transgres- 
sors, the  evil  acts  done  by  them  are  the  choice  of  their  corrupt  will,  they 
are,  therefore,  done  willingly ;  and  that  they  are  in  consequence  punish- 
able although  their  will  could  not  but  choose  them.  This  may  be  al- 
lowed to  be  true  in  the  case  of  devils,  supposing  them  at  first  to  have 
voluntarily  corrupted  an  innocent  nature  endowed  with  the  power  of 
maintaining  its  innocence,  and  that  they  were  under  no  absolute  decree 
determining  them  to  this  offence.  For,  though  now  their  will  is  so  much 
under  the  control  of  their  bad  passions,  and  is  in  itself  so  vicious,  that 
it  has  no  disposition  at  all  to  good,  and  from  their  nature,  remaining  in 
its  present  state,  can  have  no  such  tendency ;  yet  the  original  act,  or 
series  of  acts,  by  which  this  state  of  their  will  and  affections  was  induced, 
being  their  own,  and  the  result  of  a  deliberate  choice  between  moral  good 
and  evil,  both  being  in  their  own  power,  they  are  justly  held  to  be  cul- 
pable for  all  that  follows,  having  had,  originally,  the  power  to  avoid  both 
the  first  sin  and  all  others  consequent  upon  it.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  sinful  men,  who  have  formed  in  themselves,  by  repeated  acts  of  evil, 
at  first  easily  avoided,  various  habits  to  which  the  will  opposes  a  decreas- 
ing resistance  in  proportion  as  they  acquire  strength.  Such  persons,  too, 
as  are  spoken  of  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  those  whom  "  it  is  impos- 
sible  to  renew  unto  repentance,"  may  be  regarded  as  approaching  very 
nearly  to  the  state  of  apostate  spirits,  and  being  left  without  any  of  the 
aids  of  that  Holy  Spirit  whom  they  have  "  quenched,"  cannot  be  supposed 
capable  of  willing  good.  Yet  are  they  themselves  justly  chargeable  with 
this  state  of  their  wills,  and  all  the  evils  resulting  from  it.  But  the  case 
of  devils  is  widely  different  to  that  of  men  who,  by  their  hereditary 
corruption,  and  the  fall  of  human  nature,  to  which  they  were  not  con- 
senting parties,  come  into  the  world  with  this  infirm,  and,  indeed,  per- 
verse state  of  the  will,  as  to  all  good.  It  is  not  their  personal  fault  that  they 
are  born  with  a  will  averse  from  good ;  and  it  cannot  be  their  personal 
fault  that  they  continue  thus  inclined  only  to  evil  if  no  assistance  has 
been  afforded,  no  gracious  influence  imparted,  to  counteract  this  fault  of 
nature,  and  to  set  the  will  so  far  free,  that  it  can  choose  either  the  good 
urged  upon  it  by  the  authority  and  exciting  motives  of  the  Gospel,  or, 
"  making  light"  of  that,  to  yield  itself,  in  opposition  to  conviction,  to  the 

2 


438  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

evil  to  which  it  Is  by  nature  prone.  It  is  not  denied,  that  the  will,  in  its 
purely  natural  state,  and  independent  of  all  grace  communicated  to  man 
through  Christ,  can  incline  only  to  evil ;  but  the  question  is,  whether  it 
is  so  left ;  and  whether,  if  this  be  contended  for,  the  circumstance  of  a 
sinful  act  being  the  act  of  a  will  not  able  to  determine  otherwise,  from 
whatever  cause  that  may  arise,  whether  from  the  influence  of  circum- 
stances or  from  coaction,  or  from  its  own  invincible  depravity,  renders 
him  punishable  who  never  had  the  means  of  preventing  his  will  from 
lapsing  into  this  diseased  and  vitiated  state ;  who  was  bom  with  this 
moral  disease  ;  and  who,  by  an  absolute  decree,  has  been  excluded  from 
all  share  in  the  remedy  ?  This  is  the  only  simple  and  correct  way  of 
viewing  the  subject;  and  it  is  quite  independent  of  all  metaphysical 
hypothesis  as  to  the  will.  The  argument  is,  that  an  act  which  has 
the  consent  of  the  will  is  punishable,  although  the  will  can  only  choose 
evil :  we  reply,  that  this  is  only  true  where  the  time  of  trial  is  past,  as  in 
devils  and  apostates  ;  and  then  only,  because  these  are  personally  guilty 
of  having  so  vitiated  their  wills  as  to  render  them  incapable  of  good. 
But  the  case  of  men  who  have  fallen  by  the  fault  of  another,  and  who 
are  still  in  a  state  of  trial,  is  one  totally  different.  The  sentence  is 
passed  upon  devils,  and  it  is  as  good  as  passed  upon  such  apostates  as 
the  apostle  describes  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  but  the  mass  of 
mankind  are  still  probationers,  and  are  appointed  to  be  judged  according 
to  their  works,  whether  good  or  evil.  We  deny,  then,  first,  that  they  are 
in  any  case,  left  without  the  power  of  willing  good ;  and  we  deny  it  on 
the  authority  of  Scripture.  For,  in  no  sense,  can  "  life  and  death  be 
set  before  us,"  in  order  that  we  may  "  choose  life,"  if  man  is  wholly 
derelict  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  if  he  remains  under  his  natural,  and, 
but  for  the  grace  of  God  given  to  all  mankind,  his  invincible  inclination 
to  evil.  For  if  this  be  the  natural  state  of  mankind,  and  if  to  a  part  of 
them  that  remedial  grace  is  denied,  then  is  not  "  mfe"  set  before  them 
as  an  object  of  "  choice  ;"  and  if  to  another  part  that  grace  is  so  given, 
that  it  irresistibly  and  constantly  works  so  as  to  compel  the  will  to  choose 
predetermined  and  absolutely  appointed  acts,  no  "  death"  is  set  before 
them  as  an  object  of  choice.  If,  therefore,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
both  life  and  death  are  set  before  men,  then  have  they  power  to  choose 
or  refuse  either,  which  is  conclusive,  on  the  one  hand,  against  the  doc- 
trine of  the  total  dereliction  of  the  reprobate,  and  on  the  other,  against  the 
unfrustrable  operation  of  grace  upon  the  elect.  So,  also,  when  our 
Lord  says,  "  I  would  have  gathered  you  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens 
under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not,"  the  notion  that  men  who  finally 
perish  have  no  power  of  willing  that  which  is  good,  is  totally  disproved. 
The  blame  is  manifestly,  and  beyond  all  the  arts  of  cavilling  criticism, 
laid  upon  their  not  willing  in  a  contrary  manner,  which  would  be  false 
upon  the  Calvinistic  hypothesis.   "  I  would  not,  and  ye  could  not,"  ought, 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  439 

in  that  case,  to  have  been  the  reading ;  since  they  are  bound  to  one 
determination  only,  either  by  the  external  or  internal  influence  of  ano- 
ther, or  by  a  natural  and  involuntary  disease  of  the  will,  for  which  no 
remedy  was  ever  provided. 

Thus  it  is  decided  by  the  word  of  God  itself,  that  men  who  perish 
might  have  "  chosen  life."  It  is  confirmed,  also,  by  natural  reason ; 
for  it  is  most  egregiously  to  trifle  with  the  common  sense  of  mankind 
to  call  that  a  righteous  procedure  in  God  which  would  by  all  men 
be  condemned  as  a  monstrous  act  of  tyranny  and  oppression  in  a  human 
judge,  namely,  to  punish  capitally,  as  for  a  personal  offence,  those  who 
never  could  will  or  act  otherwise,  being  impelled  by  an  invincible  and 
incurable  natural  impulse  over  which  they  never  had  any  control. — 
Nor  is  the  case  at  all  amended  by  the  quibble  that  they  act  willingly, 
that  is,  with  consent  of  the  will ;  for  since  the  will  is  under  a  natural 
and  irresistible  power  to  incline  only  one  way,  obedience  is  full  as 
much  out  of  their  power  by  this  state  of  the  will,  which  they  did  not 
bring  upon  themselves,  as  if  they  were  restrained  from  all  obedience 
to  the  law  of  God  by  an  external  and  irresistible  impulse  always  acting 
upon  them. 

The  case  thus  kept  upon  the  basis  of  plain  Scripture,  and  the 
natural  reason  of  mankind,  stands,  as  we  have  said,  clear  of  all  meta- 
physical subtilties,  and  cannot  be  subjected  to  their  determination; 
but  as  attempts  have  been  made  to  estabUsh  the  doctrine  of  necessity, 
from  the  actual  phenomena  of  the  human  will,  we  may  glance,  also, 
at  this  philosophic  attempt  to  give  plausibility  to  the  predestinarian 
hypothesis. 

The  philosophic  doctrine  is,  that  the  will  is  swayed  by  motives ;  that 
motives  arise  from  circumstances ;  that  circumstances  are  ordered  by 
a  power  above  us,  and  beyond  our  control ;  and  that,  therefore,  our  vo- 
litions necessarily  follow  an  order  and  chain  of  events  appointed  and 
decreed  by  infinite  wisdom.  President  Edwards,  in  his  well  known 
work  on  the  will,  applied  this  philosophy  in  aid  of  Calvinism ;  and 
has  been  largely  followed  by  the  divines  of  that  school.  But  who  does 
not  see  that  this  attempt  to  find  a  refuge  in  the  doctrine  of  philoso- 
phical necessity  aflfords  no  shelter  to  the  Calvinian  system,  when 
pressed  either  by  Scripture  or  by  arguments  founded  upon  the  acknow- 
ledged principles  of  justice?  For  what  matters  it,  whether  the  will 
is  obhged  to  one  class  of  volitions  by  the  immediate  influence  of  God, 
or  by  the  denial  of  his  remedial  influence,  the  doctrine  of  the  elder 
Calvinists  ;  or  that  it  is  obliged  to  a  certain  class  of  vohtions  by  motives 
which  are  irresistible  in  their  operation,  which  result  from  an  arrange- 
ment of  circumstances  ordered  by  God,  and  which  we  cannot  con- 
trol ?  Take  which  theory  you  please  you  are  involved  in  the  same 
difficulties ;  for  the  result  is,  that  men  can  neither  will  nor  act  other- 

2 


440  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

wise  than  they  do,  being,  in  one  case,  inevitably  disabled  by  an  act  of 
God,  and  in  the  other  bound  by  a  chain  of  events  established  by  an 
almighty  power.  The  advocates  for  this  philosophic  theory  of  the  will 
piust  be  content  to  take  this  conclusion,  therefore,  and  reconcile  it  as  they 
can  with  the  Scriptures ;  but  they  have  the  same  task  as  their  elder  bre- 
thren  of  the  same  faith,  and  have  made  it  no  easier  by  their  philosophy. 

It  is  in  vain,  too,  that  they  refer  us  to  our  own  consciousness  in 
proof  of  this  theory.  Nothing  is  more  directly  contradicted  by  what 
passes  in  every  man's  mind  ;  and  if  we  may  take  the  terms  human 
language  has  used  on  these  subjects,  as  an  indication  of  the  general 
feehngs  of  mankind,  it  is  contradicted  by  the  experience  of  all  ages  and 
countries.  For  if  the  will  is  thus  absolutely  dependent  upon  motives, 
and  motives  arise  out  of  uncontrollable  circumstances,  for  men  to  praise 
or  to  blame  each  other  is  a  manifest  absurdity ;  and  yet  all  languages 
abound  in  such  terms.  So,  also,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  con- 
science,  which,  upon  this  scheme,  is  a  popular  delusion  which  a  better 
philosophy  might  have  dispelled.  For  why  do  I  blame  or  commend 
myself  in  my  inward  thoughts,  any  more  than  I  censure  or  praise  others, 
if  I  am,  as  to  my  choice,  but  the  passive  creature  of  motives  and  prede- 
termined circumstances  ? 

But  the  sophistry  is  easily  detected.  The  notion  inculcated  is,  that 
motives  influence  the  will  just  as  an  additional  weight  thrown  into  an 
even  scale  poises  it  and  inclines  the  beam.  This  is  the  favourite  meta- 
phor  of  the  necessitarians ;  yet,  to  make  the  comparison  good,  they 
ought  to  have  first  proved  the  will  to  be  as  passive  as  the  balance,  or, 
in  other  words,  they  should  have  annihilated  the  distinction  between 
mind  and  matter.  But  this  necessary  connection  between  motive  and 
volition  may  be  denied.  For  what  are  motives,  as  rightly  understood 
here  ?  Not  physical  causes,  as  a  weight  thrown  into  a  scale  ;  but  rea- 
sons of  choice,  mews  and  conceptions  of  things  in  the  mind,  which, 
themselves,  do  not  work  the  will^  as  a  machine ;  but  in  consideration  of 
which,  the  mind  itself  wills  and  determines.  But  if  the  mind  itself 
were  obhged  to  determine  by  the  strongest  motive,  as  the  beam  is  to 
inchne  by  the  heaviest  weight,  it  would  be  obliged  to  determine  always 
by  the  best  reason ;  for  motive  being  but  a  reason  of  action  considered 
in  the  mind,  then  the  best  reason,  being  in  the  nature  of  things  the 
strongest,  must  always  predominate.  But  this  is,  plainly,  contrary  to 
fact  and  experience.  If  it  were  not,  all  men  would  act  reasonably,  and 
none  foolishly ;  or,  at  least,  there  would  be  no  faults  among  them  but 
those  of  the  understanding,  none  of  the  heart  and  affections.  The 
weakest  reason,  however,  too  generally  succeeds  when  appetite  and 
corrupt  affection  are  present ;  that  is  to  say,  the  weakest  motive.  For 
if  this  be  not  allowed,  we  must  say,  that  under  the  influence  of  appetite 
the  weakest  reason  always  appears  the  strongest,  which  is  also  false,  in 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  441 

fact ;  for  then  there  would  be  no  sins  committed  against  judgment  and 
conviction^  and  that  many  of  our  sins  are  of  this  description,  our  con- 
sciences painfully  convict  us.  That  the  mind  wills  and  acts  generally 
under  the  influence  of  motives,  may,  therefore,  be  granted  ;  but  that  it 
is  passive,  and  operated  upon  by  them  necessarily,  is  disproved  by  the 
fact  of  our  often  acting  under  the  weakest  reason  or  motive,  which  is  the 
character  of  all  sins  against  our  judgment. 

But  were  we  even  to  admit  that  present  reasons  or  motives  operate 
irresistibly  upon  the  will,  the  necessary  connection  between  motive  and 
volition  would  not  be  established  ;  unless  it  could  be  proved  that  we 
have  no  power  to  displace  one  motive  by  another,  nor  to  control  those 
circumstances  from  which  motives  flow.  Yet,  who  will  say  that  a  per- 
son may  not  shun  evil  company,  and  fly  from  many  temptations  ? 
Either  this  must  be  allowed,  or  else  it  must  be  a  link  in  the  necessary 
chain  of  events  fixed  by  a  superior  power,  that  we  should  seek  and  not 
fly  evil  company ;  and  so  the  exhortations,  "  when  sinners  entice  thee 
consent  thou  not,"  and  "go  not  into  the  way  of  sinners,"  are  very 
impertinent,  and  only  prove  that  Solomon  was  no  philosopher.  But  we 
are  all  conscious  that  we  have  the  power  to  alter,  and  control,  and 
avoid  the  force  of  motives.  If  not,  why  does  a  man  resist  the  same 
temptation  at  one  time,  and  yield  to  it  at  another,  without  any  visible 
change  of  the  circumstances  ?  He  can  also  both  change  his  circum- 
stances by  shunning  evil  company  ;  and  fly  the  occasions  of  temptation ; 
and  control  that  motive  at  one  time  to  which  he  yields  at  another,  under 
similar  circumstances.  Nay,  he  sometimes  resists  a  powerful  tempta- 
tion, which  is  the  same  thing  as  resisting  a  powerful  motive,  and  yields 
at  another  to  a  feeble  one,  and  is  conscious  that  he  does  so :  a  sufficient 
proof  that  there  is  an  irregularity  and  corruptness  in  the  self-determin- 
ing, active  power  of  the  mind,  independent  of  motive.  Still,  farther, 
the  motive  or  reason  for  an  action  may  be  a  bad  one,  and  yet  be  preva- 
lent for  want  of  the  presence  of  a  better  reason  or  motive  to  lead  to  a 
c©ntrar}'  choice  and  act ;  but,  in  how  many  instances  is  this  the  true 
cause  why  a  better  reason  or  stronger  motive  is  not  present,  that  we 
have  lived  thoughtless  and  vain  Uves,  little  considering  the  good  or  evil 
of  things  ?  And  if  so,  then  the  thoughtless  might  have  been  more 
thoughtful,  and  the  ignorant  might  have  acquired  better  knowledge,  and 
thereby  have  placed  themselves  under  the  influence  of  stronger  and 
better  motives.  Thus  this  theory  does  not  accord  with  the  facts  of  our 
own  consciousness,  but  contradicts  them.  It  is,  also,  refuted  by  every 
part  of  the  moral  history  of  man ;  and  it  may  be,  therefore,  concluded 
that  those  speculations  on  the  human  will,  to  which  the  predestinarian 
theoiy  has  driven  its  advocates,  are  equally  opposed  to  the  words  of 
Scripture,  to  the  philosophy  of  mind,  to  our  observation  of  what  passes 
jn  others,  and  to  our  own  convictions. 

2 


442  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Our  moral  liberty  manifestly  consists  in  the  united  power  of  thinking 
and  reasoning,  and  of  choosing  and  acting  upon  such  thinking  and  rea- 
soning  ;  so  that  the  clearer  our  thought  and  conception  is  of  what  is  fit 
and  right,  and  the  more  constantly  our  choice  is  determined  by  it, 
the  more  nearly  we  rise  to  the  highest  acts  and  exercises  of  this  liberty. 
The  best  beings  have,  therefore,  the  highest  degree  of  moral  liberty, 
since  no  motive  to  will  or  act  wrong  is  any  thing  else  but  a  violation  of 
this  established  and  original  connection  between  right  reason,  choice, 
and  conduct ;  and  if  any  necessity  bind  the  irrational  motive  upon  the 
will,  it  is  either  the  result  of  bad  voluntary  habit,  for  which  we  are 
accountable ;  or  necessity  of  nature  and  circumstances,  for  which  we 
ar-e  not  accountable.  In  the  former  case  the  actually  influencing  mo- 
tive is  evitable,  and  the  theory  of  the  necessitarians  is  disproved  :  in  the 
latter  it  is  confirmed ;  but  then  man  is  neither  responsible  to  his  fellow 
man,  nor  to  God. 

Certain  notions  as  to  the  Divine  sovereignty  have  also  been  resorted 
to  by  Calvinists,  in  order  to  render  that  scheme  plausible  which  cuts 
ofi"  the  greater  part  of  the  human  race  from  the  hope  of  salvation  by  the 
absolute  decree  of  God. 

That  the  sovereignty  of  God  is  a  Scriptural  doctrine  no  one  can  deny ; 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  notions  which  men  please  to  form  of  it 
should  be  received  as  Scriptural ;  for  religious  errors  consist  not  only  in 
denying  the  doctrines  of  the  word  of  God,  but  also  in  interpreting  them 
fallaciously. 

The  Calvinistic  view  of  God's  sovereignty  appears  to  be,  his  doing 
what  he  wills,  only  because  he  wills  it.  So  Calvin  himself  has  stated 
the  case,  as  we  have  noticed  above ;  but  as  this  view  is  repugnant  to 
all  worthy  notions  of  an  infinitely  wise  Being,  so  it  has  no  countenance  in 
Scripture.  The  doctrine  which  we  are  there  taught  is,  that  God's  sove- 
reignty consists  in  his  doing  many  things  by  virtue  of  his  own  supreme 
right  and  dominion ;  but  that  this  right  is  under  the  direction  of  his 
"  counsel"  or  "  wisdom,''^  The  brightest  act  of  sovereignty  is  that  of 
creation,  and  one  in  which,  if  in  any,  mere  will  might  seem  to  have  the 
chief  place  ;  yet,  even  in  this  act,  by  which  myriads  of  beings  of  diverse 
powers  and  capacities  were  produced,  we  are  taught  that  all  was  done 
in  ^^  wisdom.''  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  cre- 
ation, is  uncontrolled  by  either  justice  or  goodness.  If  the  final  cause 
of  creation  had  been  the  misery  of  all  sentient  creatures,  and  all  its 
contrivances  had  tended  to  that  end :  if,  for  instance,  every  sight  had 
been  disgusting,  every  smell  a  stench,  every  sound  a  scream,  and  every 
necessary  function  of  fife  had  been  performed  with  pain,  we  must  neces- 
sarily have  referred  the  creation  of  such  a  world  to  a  malignant  being ; 
and  if  we  are  obliged  to  think  it  impossible  that  a  good  being  could 
have  employed  his  almighty  power  with  the  direct  intention  to  inflict 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  443 

misery,  we  tiieii  concede  that  his  acts  of  sovereignty  are,  by  the  very 
perfection  of  his  nature,  under  the  direction  of  his  goodness,  as  to  all 
creatures  potentially  existing,  or  actually  existing  while  still  innocent. 
Nor  can  we  think  it  borne  out  by  Scripture,  or  by  the  reasonable  notions 
of  mankind,  that  the  exercise  of  God's  sovereignty  in  the  creation  of 
things  is  exempt  from  any  respect  to  justice,  a  quality  of  the  Divine 
nature,  which  is  nothing  but  his  essential  rectitude  in  exercise.  It  is 
true,  that  as  existence,  under  all  circumstances  in  which  to  exist  is  bet- 
ter upon  the  whole  than  not  to  exist,  leaves  the  creature  no  claim  to 
have  been  otherwise  than  it  is  made ;  and  that  God  has  a  sovereign 
right  to  make  one  being  an  archangel  and  another  an  insect ;  so  that 
"  the  thing  formed"  may  not  say  "  to  him  that  formed  it,  why  hast  thou 
made  me  thus  ?"  it  could  deserve  nothing  before  creation,  its  being  not 
having  commenced  :  all  that  it  is,  and  has,  (its  existent  state  being  better 
than  non-existence,)  is,  therefore,  a  boon  conferred ;  and,  in  matters  of 
grace,  no  axiom  can  be  more  clear,  than  that  he  who  gratuitously  be- 
stows has  the  right  "  to  do  what  he  will  with  his  own."  But  every 
creature,  having  been  formed  without  any  consent  of  its  own,  if  it  be 
innocent  of  offence,  either  from  the  rectitude  of  its  nature,  or  from  a 
natural  incapacity  of  offending,  as  not  being  a  moral  agent,  appears  to 
have  a  claim,  in  natural  right,  upon  exemption  from  such  pains  and  suf. 
ferings,  as  would  render  existence  a  worse  condition  than  never  to  have 
been  called  out  of  nothing.  For,  as  a  benevolent  being,  which  God  is 
acknowledged  to  be,  cannot  make  a  creature  with  such  an  intention 
and  contrivance,  that,  by  its  very  constitution,  it  must  necessarily  be 
wholly  miserable  ;  and  we  see  in  this,  that  his  sovereignty  is  regulated 
by  his  goodness  as  to  the  commencement  of  the  existence  of  sentient 
creatures  ;  so,  from  the  moment  they  begin  to  be,  the  government  of  God 
over  them  commences,  and  sovereignty  in  government  necessarily 
grounds  itself  upon  the  principles  of  equity  and  justice,  and  "  the  Judge 
of  the  whole  earth"  must  and  will  "  do  right." 

This  is  the  manifest  doctrine  of  Scripture ;  for,  although  Almighty 
God  often  gives  "  no  account  of  his  matters,"  nor,  in  some  instances, 
admits  us  to  know  how  he  is  both  just  and  gracious  in  his  administration, 
yet  are  we  referred  constantly  to  those  general  declarations  of  his  own 
word,  which  assure  us  that  he  is  so,  that  we  may  "  walk  by  faith,"  and 
wait  for  that  period,  when,  after  the  faith  and  patience  of  good  men 
have  been  sufficiently  tried,  the  manifestation  of  these  facts  shall  take 
place  to  our  comfort  and  to  his  glory.  In  many  respects,  so  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  we  see  no  other  reason  for  his  proceedings,  than  that  he 
so  wills  to  act.  But  the  error  into  which  our  brethren  often  fall,  is  to 
conchide,  from  their  want  of  information  in  such  cases,  that  God  acts 
merely  because  he  wills  so  to  act ;  that  because  he  gives  not  those 
reasons  for  his  conduct  which  we  have  no  right  to  demand,  he  acts 

2 


444  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

without  any  reasons  at  all ;  and  because  we  are  not  admitted  to  the 
secrets  of  his  council  chamber,  that  his  government  is  perfectly  arbi- 
trary,  and  that  the  main  spring  of  his  leading  dispensations  is  to  make 
a  show  of  power  :  a  conclusion  which  implies  a  most  unworthy  notion 
of  God,  which  he  has  himself  contradicted  in  the  most  explicit  manner. 
Even  his  most  mysterious  proceedings  are  called  "  judgments ;"  and  he 
is  said  to  work  all  things  "  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,'^  a 
collation  of  words,  which  sufficiently  show  that  not  blind  will,  but  will 
subject  to  "  counsel"  is  that  sovereign  will  which  governs  the  world. 

"  Whenever,  therefore,  God  acts  as  a  governor,  as  a  rewarder,  or 
punisher,  he  no  longer  acts  as  a  mere  sovereign,  by  his  own  sole  will 
and  pleasure,  but  as  an  impartial  judge,  guided  in  all  things  by  invariable 
justice. 

"Yet  it  is  true,  that  in  some  cases,  mercy  rejoices  over  justice, 
although  severity  never  does.  God  may  reward  more,  but  he  will  never 
punish  more  than  strict  justice  requires.  It  may  be  allowed,  that  God 
acts  as  sovereign  in  convincing  some  souls  of  sin,  arresting  them  in  their 
mad  career  by  his  resistless  power.  It  seems  also,  that,  at  the  moment 
of  our  conversion,  he  acts  irresistibly.  There  may  hkewise  be  many 
irresistible  touches  in  the  course  of  our  Christian  warfare  ;  but  still,  as 
St.  Paul  might  have  been  either  obedient  or  '  disobedient  to  the  heavenly 
vision,'  so  every  individual  may,  after  all  that  God  has  done,  either  im- 
prove his  grace,  or  make  it  of  none  effect. 

"Whatever,  therefore,  it  has  pleased  God  to  do,  of  his  sovereign 
pleasure,  as  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth  ;  and  whatever  his  mercy  may 
do  on  particular  occasions,  over  and  above  what  justice  requires,  the 
general  rule  stands  firm  as  the  pillars  of  heaven.  '  The  Judge  of  all 
the  earth  will  do  right :'  '  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,'  and 
every  man  therein,  according  to  the  strictest  justice.  He  will  punish 
no  man  for  doing  any  thing  which  he  could  not  possibly  avoid ;  neither 
for  omitting  any  thing  which  he  could  not  possibly  do.  Every  punish- 
ment supposes  the  offender  might  have  avoided  the  offence  for  which  he 
is  punished,  otherwise  to  punish  him  would  be  palpably  unjust,  and 
inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God  our  governor."  {Wesley^s  Works^ 
vol.  vi,  p.  136.) 

The  case  of  heathen  nations  has  sometimes  been  referred  to  by 
fJalvinists,  as  presenting  equal  difficulties  to  those  urged  against  their 
scheme  of  election  and  reprobation.  But  the  cases  are  not  at  all  parallel, 
nor  can  they  be  made  so,  unless  it  could  be  proved  that  heathens,  as 
such,  are  inevitably  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  which  is 
not,  as  some  of  them  seem  to  suppose,  a  conceded  point.  Those,  in- 
deed, if  there  be  any  such,  who,  believing  in  the  universal  redemption 
of  mankind,  should  allow  this,  would  be  most  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves, and  give  up  many  of  those  principles  on  which  they  successfully 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  445 

contend  against  the  doctrine  of  absolute  reprobation  ;  but  the  argument 
hes  in  small  compass,  and  is  to  be  determined  by  the  word  of  God,  and 
not  by  the  speculations  of  men.  The  actual  state  of  pagan  nations  is 
affectingly  bad  ;  but  nothing  can  be  deduced  from  what  they  are  in  fact 
against  their  salvability  ;  for  although  there  is  no  ground  to  hope  for  the 
salvation  of  great  numbers  of  them,  actual  salvation  is  one  thing,  and 
possible  salvation  is  another.  Nor  does  it  affect  this  question,  if  we  see 
not  how  heathens  may  be  saved ;  that  is,  by  what  means  repentance, 
and  faith,  and  righteousness,  should  be  in  any  such  degree  wrought  in 
them,  as  that  they  shall  become  acceptable  to  God.  The  dispensation 
of  rehgion  under  which  all  those  nations  are  to  whom  the  Gospel  has 
never  been  sent,  continues  to  be  the  patriarchal  dispensation.  That 
men  were  saved  under  that  in  former  times  we  know,  and  at  what  point, 
if  any,  a  rehgion  becomes  so  far  corrupted,  and  truth  so  far  extinct,  as 
to  leave  no  means  of  salvation  to  men,  nothing  to  call  forth  a  true  faith 
in  'principle,  and  obedience  to  what  remains  known  or  knowable  of  the 
original  law,  no  one  has  the  right  to  determine,  unless  he  can  adduce 
some  authority  from  Scripture.  That  authority  is  certainly  not  avail- 
able to  the  conclusion,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  means  of  salvation  are 
utterly  withdrawn  from  heathens.  We  may  say  that  a  murderous, 
adulterous,  and  idolatrous  heathen  will  be  shut  out  from  the  kingdom 
of  heaven ;  we  must  say  this,  on  the  express  exclusion  of  all  such  cha- 
racters from  future  blessedness  by  the  word  of  God ;  but  it  would  be 
little  to  the  purpose  to  say,  that,  as  far  as  we  know,  all  of  them  are 
wicked  and  idolatrous.  As  far  as  we  know  they  may,  but  we  do  not 
know  the  whole  case  ;  and,  were  these  charges  universally  true,  yet  the 
question  is  not  what  the  heathen  are,  but  what  they  have  the  means  of 
becoming.  We  indeed  know  that  all  are  not  equally  vicious,  nay,  that 
some  virtuous  heathens  have  been  found  in  all  ages ;  and  some  earnest 
and  anxious  inquirers  after  truth,  dissatisfied  with  the  notions  prevalent 
in  their  own  countries  respectively ;  and  what  these  few  were,  the  rest 
might  have  been  hkewise.  But,  if  we  knew  no  such  instances  of  supe- 
rior virtue  and  eager  desire  of  religious  information  among  them,  the 
true  question,  "  what  degree  of  tmth  is,  after  all,  attainable  by  them  ?" 
would  still  remain  a  question  which  must  be  determined  not  so  much  by 
our  knowledge  of  facts  which  may  be  very  obscure  ;  but  such  principles 
and  general  declarations  as  we  find  applicable  to  the  case  in  the  word 
of  God. 

If  all  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong,  and  all  gracious  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  all  objects  of  faith,  have  passed  away  from  the  heathen^^ 
through  the  fault  of  their  ancestors  "  not  liking  to  retain  God  in  their 
knov/ledge,"  and  without  the  present  race  having  been  parties  to  this 
wilful  abandonment  of  truth,  then  they  would  appear  no  longer  to  be 
accountable  creatures,  being  neither  under  law  nor  under  grace ;  but, 

2 


446  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

as  we  find  it  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  that  all  men  are  responsible  to 
God,  and  that  the  '•  whole  world"  will  be  judged  at  the  last  day,  we  are 
bound  to  admit  the  accountability  of  all,  and  with  that,  the  remains  of 
law  and  the  existence  of  a  merciful  government  toward  the  heathen  on 
the  part  of  God.  With  this  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul  accords.  No  one 
can  take  stronger  views  of  the  actual  danger  and  the  corrupt  state  of 
the  Gentiles  than  he ;  yet  he  affirms  that  the  Divine  law  had  not 
perished  wholly  from  among  them ;  that  though  they  had  received  no 
revealed  law,  yet  they  had  a  law  "  written  on  their  hearts  ;"  meaning, 
no  doubt,  the  traditionary  law,  the  equity  of  which  their  consciences 
attested ;  and,  farther,  that  though  they  had  not  the  written  law,  yet, 
that  "  by  nature,"  that  is,  "  without  an  outward  rule,  though  this,  also, 
strictly  speaking,  is  by  preventing  grace,"  (Wesley^ s  Notes ,  in  loc.) 
they  were  capable  of  doing  all  the  things  contained  in  the  law.  He 
affirms,  too,  that  all  such  Gentiles  as  were  thus  obedient,  should  be 
"justified,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men,  by 
Jesus  Christ,  according  to  his  Gospel."  The  possible  obedience  and 
the  possible  "justification"  of  heathens  who  have  no  written  revelation, 
are  points,  therefore,  distinctly  affirmed  by  the  apostle  in  his  discourse 
in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  whole  mat- 
ter of  God's  sovereignty,  as  to  the  heathen,  is  reduced,  not  to  the  leav- 
ing of  any  portion  of  our  race  without  the  means  of  salvation,  and  then 
punishing  them  for  sins  which  they  have  no  means  of  avoiding ;  but  to 
the  fact  of  his  having  given  superior  advantages  to  us,  and  inferior 
ones  only  to  them ;  a  proceeding  which  we  see  exemplified  in  the  most 
enlightened  of  Christian  nations  every  day ;  for  neither  every  part  of 
the  same  nation  is  equally  favoured  with  the  means  of  grace,  nor  are 
all  the  families  living  in  the  same  town  and  neighbourhood  equally  cir- 
cumstanced as  to  means  of  religious  influence  and  improvement.  The 
principle  of  this  inequality  is,  however,  far  different  from  that  on  which 
Calvinistic  reprobation  is  sustained  ;  since  it  involves  no  inevitable 
exclusion  of  any  individual  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  because  the 
general  principle  of  God's  administration  in  such  cases  is  elsewhere  laid 
down  to  be,  the  requiring  of  much  where  much  is  given,  and  the  requir- 
ing  of  little  where  little  is  given  : — a  principle  of  the  strictest  equity. 

An  unguarded  opinion  as  to  the  irresistibility  of  grace,  and  the 
passiveness  of  man  in  conversion,  has  also  been  assumed,  and  made  to 
give  an  air  of  plausibility  to  the  predestinarian  scheme.  It  is  argued, 
if  our  salvation  is  of  God  and  not  of  ourselves,  then  those  only  can  be 
saved  to  whom  God  gives  the  grace  of  conversion ;  and  the  rest,  not 
having  this  grace  afforded  them,  are,  by  the  inscrutable  counsel  of  God, 
passed  by,  and  reprobated. 

This  is  an  argument  a  posteriori ;  from  the  assumed  passiveness  of 
man  in  conversion  to  the  election  of  a  part  only  of  mankind  to  life.  The 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  447 

argument  a  priori  is  from  partial  election  to  life  to  the  doctrine  of  irre- 
sistible  grace,  as  the  means  by  which  the  Divine  decree  is  carried  into 
effect.  The  doctrine  of  such  an  election  has  already  been  refuted,  and 
it  will  be  easy  to  show  that  it  derives  no  support  from  the  assumption 
that  grace  must  work  irresistibly  in  man,  in  order  that  the  honour  of 
our  salvation  may  be  secured  to  God,  which  is  the  plausible  dress  in 
which  the  doctrine  is  generally  presented. 

It  is  allowed,  and  all  Scriptural  advocates  of  the  universal  redemption 
of  mankind  will  join  with  the  Calvinists  in  maintaining  the  doctrine,  that 
every  disposition  and  inclination  to  good  which  originally  existed  in  the 
nature  of  man  is  lost  by  the  fall ;  that  all  men,  in  their  simply  natural 
state,  are  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  and  have  neither  the  will  nor 
the  power  to  turn  to  God ;  and  that  no  one  is  sufficient  of  himself  to 
think  or  do  any  thing  of  a  saving  tendency.  But,  as  all  men  are  re- 
quired to  do  those  things  which  have  a  saving  tendency,  we  contend, 
that  the  grace  to  do  them  has  been  bestowed  upon  all.  Equally  sacred 
is  the  doctrine  to  be  held,  that  no  person  can  repent  or  truly  believe  ex- 
cept under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  that  we  have  no 
ground  of  boasting  in  ourselves,  but  that  all  the  glory  of  our  salvation, 
commenced  and  consummated,  is  to  be  given  to  God  alone,  as  the  result 
of  the  freeness  and  riches  of  his  grace. 

It  will  also  be  freely  allowed,  that  the  visitations  of  the  gracious  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  vouchsafed  in  the  first  instance,  and  in 
numberless  other  subsequent  cases,  quite  independent  of  our  seeking 
them  or  desire  for  them  ;  and  that  when  our  thoughts  are  thus  turned 
to  serious  considerations,  and  various  exciting  and  quickened  feelings 
are  produced  within  us,  we  are  often  wholly  passive  ;  and  also,  that  men 
are  sometimes  suddenly  and  irresistibly  awakened  to  a  sense  of  their 
guilt  and  danger  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  either  through  the  preaching  of 
the  word  instrumentally,  or  through  other  means,  and  sometimes,  even, 
independent  of  any  external  means  at  all ;  and  are  thus  constrained  to 
cry  out,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  All  this  is  confirmed  by  plain 
verity  of  Holy  Writ ;  and  is,  also,  as  certain  a  matter  of  experience  as 
that  the  motions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  do  oflen  silently  intermingle  them- 
selves  with  our  thoughts,  reasonings,  and  consciences,  and  breathe  their 
milder  persuasions  upon  our  aflfections. 

From  these  premises  the  conclusions  which  legitimately  flow,  are  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  Calvinistic  hypothesis.     They  estabUsh, 

1.  The  justice  of  God  in  the  condemnation  of  men,  which  their  doc- 
trine leaves  under  a  dark  and  impenetrable  cloud.  More  or  less  of  these 
influences  from  on  high  visit  the  finally  impenitent,  so  as  to  render  their 
destruction  their  own  act  by  resisting  them.  This  is  proved,  from  the 
"  Spirit"  having  "  strove"  with  those  who  were  finally  destroyed  by  the 
flood  of  Noah ;  from  the  case  of  the  finally  impenitent  Jews  and  their 

2  . 


448  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ancestors,  who  are  charged  with  "  always  resisting  the  Holy  Ghost ;" 
from  the  case  of  the  apostates  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
who  are  said  to  have  done  "  despite  to  the  Spirit  of  grace  ;"  and  from 
the  solemn  warnings  given  to  men  in  the  New  Testament,  not  to 
"  grieve"  and  "  quench"  the  Holy  Spirit.  If,  therefore,  it  appears  that 
the  destruction  of  men  is  attributed  to  their  resistance  of  those  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which,  but  for  that  resistance,  would  have  been  saving, 
according  to  the  design  of  God  in  imparting  them,  then  is  the  justice  of 
God  manifested  in  their  punishment ;  and  it  follows,  also,  that  his  grace 
so  works  in  men,  as  to  be  both  sufficient  to  lead  them  into  a  state  of 
salvation,  and  even  actually  to  place  them  in  this  state,  and  yet  so  as  to 
be  capable  of  being  finally  and  fatally  frustrated. 

2.  These  premises,  also,  secure  the  glory  of  our  salvation  to  the 
grace  of  God ;  but  not  by  implying  the  Calvinistic  notion  of  the  con- 
tinned  and  uninterrupted  irresistibility  of  the  influence  of  grace  and  the 
passiveness  of  man,  so  as  to  deprive  him  of  his  agency;  but  by  showing 
that  his  agency,  even  when  rightly  directed,  is  upheld  and  influenced  by 
the  superior  power  of  God,  and  yet  so  as  to  be  still  his  own.  For,  in 
the  instance  of  the  mightiest  visitation  we  can  produce  from  Scripture, 
that  of  St.  Paul,  we  see  where  the  irresistible  influence  terminated,  and 
where  his  own  agency  recommenced.  Under  the  impulse  of  the  con- 
viction struck  into  his  mind,  as  well  as  under  the  dazzling  brightness 
which  fell  upon  his  eyes,  he  was  passive,  and  the  effect  produced  for  the 
time  Tiecessarily  followed ;  but  all  the  actions  consequent  upon  this  were 
the  results  of  deliberation  and  personal  choice.  He  submits  to  be  taught 
in  the  doctrine  of  Christ ;  "  he  confers  not  with  flesh  and  blood  ;"  "  he 
is  not  disobedient  to  the  heavenly  vision  ;"  "  he  faints  not"  under  the 
burdensome  ministry  he  had  received ;  and  he  "  keeps  his  body  under 
subjection,  lest,  after  having  preached  to  others,  he  should  himself  be- 
come a  castaway."  All  these  expressions,  so  descriptive  of  considera- 
tion and  choice,  show  that  the  irresistible  impulse  was  not  permanent, 
and  that  he  was  subsequently  left  to  improve  it  or  not,  though  under  a 
powerful  but  still  a  resistible  motive  operating  upon  him  to  remain 
faithful. 

For  the  gentler  emotions  produced  by  the  Spirit,  these  are,  as  the  ex- 
perience of  all  Christians  testifies,  the  ordinary  and  general  manner  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  carries  on  his  work  in  man ;  and,  if  all  good  de- 
sires, resolves,  and  aspirations,  are  from  him,  and  not  from  our  own 
nature,  (and,  if  we  are  utterly  fallen,  from  our  own  nature  they  cannot 
be,)  then  if  any  man  is  conscious  of  having  ever  checked  good  desires, 
and  of  having  opposed  his  own  convictions  and  better  feelings,  he  has 
in  himself  abundant  proof  of  the  resistibility  of  grace,  and  of  the  super- 
ability  of  those  good  inclinations  which  the  Spirit  is  pleased  to  impart. 
He  is  equally  conscious  of  the  power  of  complying  with  them,  though 


SECOiND.l  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  449 

Still  in  the  strength  of  grace,  which  yet,  while  it  works  in  him  "  to  will 
and  to  do,"  neither  wills  nor  acts  ybr  him,  nor  even  by  him,  as  a  passive 
instrument.  For  if  men  were  wholly  and  at  all  times  passive  under 
Divine  influence ;  not  merely  in  the  reception  of  it,  for  all  are,  in  that 
respect,  passive ;  but  in  the  actings  of  it  to  practical  ends,  then  would 
there  be  nothing  to  mark  the  difference  between  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  but  an  act  of  God,  which  is  utterly  irreconcilable  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  call  the  former  "  obedient,"  the  latter  "  disobedient ;"  one 
"  willing,"  the  other  "  unwilling ;"  and  promise  or  threaten  accordingly. 
They  attribute  the  destruction  of  the  one  to  their  refusal  of  the  grace  of 
God,  and  the  salvation  of  the  other,  as  the  instrumental  cause,  to  their 
acceptance  of  it ;  and  to  urge  that  that  personal  act  by  which  we  receive 
the  grace  of  Christ,  detracts  from  his  glory  as  our  Saviour  by  attributing 
our  salvation  to  ourselves,  is  to  speak  as  absurdly  as  if  we  should  say 
that  the  act  of  obedience  and  faith  required  of  the  man  w'ho  was  com- 
manded to  stretch  out  his  withered  arm,  detracted  from  the  glory  of 
Christ's  heaUng  virtue,  by  which,  indeed,  the  powef  of  complying  with 
the  command,  and  the  condition  of  his  being  healed,  was  imparted. 

It  is  by  such  reasonings,  made  plausible  to  many  minds  by  an  affec- 
tation of  metaphysical  depth  and  subtilty,  or  by  pretensions  of  magnify- 
ing the  sovereignty  and  grace  of  God  (often,  we  doubt  not,  very  sincere) 
that  the  theory  of  election  and  reprobation,  as  held  by  the  followers  of 
Calvin  with  some  shades  of  difference,  but  in  all  substantially  the  same, 
has  had  currency  given  to  it  in  the  Church  of  Christ  in  these  latter  ages. 
How  unsound  and  how  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  they  are,  may  appear 
from  that  brief  refutation  of  them  just  given ;  but  I  repeat  what  was  said 
above,  that  we  are  never  to  forget  that  this  system  has  generally  had 
interwoven  with  it  many  of  the  most  vital  points  of  Christianity.  It  is 
this  which  has  kept  it  in  existence  ;  for  otherwise  it  had  never,  probably, 
held  itself  up  against  the  opposing  evidence  of  so  many  plain  scriptures, 
and  that  sense  of  the  benevolence  and  equity  of  God,  which  his  own 
revelations,  as  well  as  natural  reason,  has  riveted  in  the  convictions  of 
mankind.  In  one  respect  the  Calvinistic  and  the  Socinian  schemes  have 
tacitly  confessed  the  evidence  of  the  word  of  God  to  be  against  them. 
The  latter  has  shrunk  from  the  letter  and  common  sense  interpretation 
of  Scripture  within  the  clouds  raised  by  a  licentious  criticism ;  the  other 
has  chosen  rather  to  find  refuge  in  the  mists  of  metaphysical  theories. 
Nothing  is,  however,  here  meant  by  this  juxtaposition  of  theories,  so 
contrary  to  each  other,  but  that  both  thus  confess,  that  the  prima  facie 
evidence  afforded  by  the  word  of  God  is  not  in  their  favour.  If  we 
intended  more  by  thus  naming  on  the  same  page  systems  so  opposite, 
one  of  which,  with  all  its  faults,  contains  all  that  truth  by  which  men 
may  be  saved,  while  the  other  excludes  it,  "  we  should  offend  against 
the  generation  of  the  children  of  God." 
Vol.  II.  29 


450  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

CHAPTER   XXIX. 
Redemption — Farther  Benefits. 

Having  endeavoured  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  re- 
demption of  the  human  race,  the  enumeration  of  the  leading  blessings 
which  flow  from  it  may  now  be  resumed.  We  have  already  spoken  of 
justijication,  adoption,  regeneration,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit y 
and  we  proceed  to  another  as  distinctly  marked,  and  as  graciously 
promised  in  the  Holy  Scriptures :  this  is  the  entire  sanctification, 
or  the  perfected  holiness  of  believers ;  and  as  this  doctrine,  in  some 
of  its  respects,  has  been  the  subject  of  controversy,  the  Scriptural  evi- 
dence of  it  must  be  appealed  to  and  examined.  Happily  for  us,  a  sub- 
ject of  so  great  importance  is  not  involved  in  obscurity. 

That  a  distinction  exists  between  a  regenerate  state  and  a  state  of 
entire  and  perfect  holiness  will  be  generally  allowed.  Regeneration, 
we  have  seen,  is  concomitant  with  justification ;  but  the  apostles,  in 
addressing  the  body  of  believers  in  the  Churches  to  whom  they  wrote 
their  epistles,  set  before  them,  both  in  the  prayers  they  offer  in  their 
behalf,  and  in  the  exhortations  they  administer,  a  still  higher  degree  of 
dehverance  from  sin,  as  well  as  a  higher  growth  in  Christian  virtues. 
Two  passages  only  need  be  quoted  to  prove  this  : — 1  Thess.  v,  23, 
**  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly,  and  I  pray  God  your 
whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  2  Cor.  vii,  1,  "Having  these  promises, 
dearly  beloved,  let  us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh 
and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God."  In  both  these  pas- 
sages deliverance  from  sin  is  the  subject  spoken  of;  and  the  prayer  in 
one  instance,  and  the  exhortation  in  the  other,  goes  to  the  extent  of  the 
entire  sanctification  of  "  the  soul"  and  "  spirit,"  as  well  as  of  the  "  flesh" 
or  "  body,"  from  all  sin ;  by  which  can  only  be  meant  our  complete  de- 
liverance from  all  spiritual  pollution,  all  inward  depravation  of  the  heart, 
as  well  as  that  which,  expressing  itself  outwardly  by  the  indulgence  of 
the  senses,  is  called  "filthiness  of  the  flesh." 

The  attainableness  of  such  a  state  is  not  so  much  a  matter  of  debate 
among  Christians  as  the  time  when  we  are  authorized  to  expect  it.  For 
as  it  is  BXi  axiom  of  Christian  doctrine,  that  "  without  holiness  no  man 
can  see  the  Lord  ;"  and  is  equally  clear  that  if  we  would  "  be  found 
of  him  in  peace,"  we  must  be  found  "  without  spot  and  blameless ;"  and 
that  the  Church  will  be  presented  by  Christ  to  the  Father  without 
"  fault ;"  so  it  must  be  concluded,  unless,  on  the  one  hand,  we  greatly 
pervert  the  sense  of  these  passages,  or,  on  the  other,  admit  the  doctrine 

of  purgatory  or  some  intermediate  purifying  institution,  that  the  entire 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  451 

sanctification  of  the  soul,  and  its  complete  renewal  in  holiness,  must 
take  place  in  this  world. 

While  this  is  generally  acknowledged,  however,  among  spiritual 
Christians,  it  has  been  warmly  contended  by  many,  that  the  final  stroke 
which  destroys  our  natural  corruption,  is  only  given  at  death  ;  and  that 
the  soul,  when  separated  from  the  body,  and  not  before,  is  capable  of 
that  immaculate  purity  which  these  passages,  doubtless,  exhibit  to  our 
hope. 

If  this  view  can  be  refuted,  then  it  must  follow,  unless  a  purgatory  of 
some  description  be  allowed  after  death,  that  the  entire  sanctification  of 
behevers,  at  any  time  previous  to  their  dissolution,  and  in  the  full  sense 
of  these  evangelic  promises,  is  attainable. 

To  the  opinion  in  question,  then,  there  appear  to  be  the  following  fatal 
objections : — 

1.  That  we  nowhere  find  the  promises  of  entire  sanctification  restricted 
to  the  article  of  death,  either  expressly,  or  in  fair  inference  from  any 
passage  of  Holy  Scripture. 

2.  That  we  nowhere  find  the  circumstance  of  the  soul's  union  with 
the  body  represented  as  a  necessary  obstacle  to  its  entire  sanctification. 

The  principal  passage  which  has  been  urged  m  proof  of  this  from  the 
New  Testament,  is  that  part  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  in  which  St.  Paul,  speaking  in  the  first  person  of  the  bondage 
of  the  flesh,  has  been  supposed  to  describe  his  state,  as  a  believer  ii* 
Christ.  But  whether  he  speaks  of  himself,  or  describes  the  state  of 
others  in  a  supposed  case,  given  for  the  sake  of  more  vivid  representa- 
lion  in  the  first  person,  which  is  much  more  probable,  he  is  clearly 
speaking  of  a  person  who  had  once  sought  justification  by  the  works  of 
the  law,  but  who  was  then  convinced,  by  the  force  of  a  spiritual  appre- 
hension of  the  extent  of  the  requirements  of  that  law,  and  by  constant 
failures  in  his  attempts  to  keep  it  perfectly,  that  he  was  in  bondage  to 
his  corrupt  nature,  and  could  only  be  delivered  from  this  thraldom  by 
the  interposition  of  emother.  For,  not  to  urge  that  his  strong  expres- 
sions  of  being  "  carnal,"  "  sold  under  sin,"  and  doing  always  "  the 
things  which  he  would  not,"  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  that  moral 
state  of  believers  in  Christ  which  he  describes  in  the  next  chapter ; 
and,  especially,  that  he  there  declares  that  such  as  are  in  Christ  Jesus 
"  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit ;"  the  seventh  chapter 
itself  contains  decisive  evidence  against  the  inference  which  the  advo- 
cates of  the  necessary  continuance  of  sin  till  death  have  drawn  from  it. 
The  apostle  declares  the  person  whose  case  he  describes,  to  be  under 
the  law,  and  not  in  a  state  of  deliverance  by  Christ ;  and  then  he  repre- 
sents him  not  only  as  despairing  of  self  deliverance,  and  as  praying  for 
the  interposition  of  a  sufficiently  powerful  deliverer,  but  as  thanking 
God  that  the  very  deUverance  for  which  he  groans  is  appointed  to  be 

2 


452  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

administered  to  him  by  Jesus  Christ.     "  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the 
body  of  this  death  ?     I  thank  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

This  is,  also,  so  fully  confirmed  by  what  the  apostle  had  said  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  where  he  unquestionably  describes  the  moral  state 
of  true  beUevers,  that  nothing  is  more  surprising  than  that  so  perverted 
a  comment  upon  the  seventh  chapter,  as  that  to  which  we  have  adverted, 
should  have  been  adopted  or  persevered  in.  "  What  shall  we  say  then? 
Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God  forbid  !  How 
shall  we,  who  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein?  Know  ye  not, 
that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of 
the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also 
in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection ;  knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is 
crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that 
henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin ;  for  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from 
SIN."  So  clearly  does  the  apostle  show  that  he  who  is  bound  to  the 
"  body  of  death,"  as  mentioned  in  the  seventh  chapter,  is  not  in  the  state 
of  a  believer ;  and  that  he  who  has  a  true  faith  in  Christ,  "  is  freed 
from  sin." 

It  is  somewhat  singular,  that  the  divines  of  the  Calvinistic  school 
should  be  almost  uniformly  the  zealous  advocates  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  continuance  of  indwelling  sin  till  death ;  but  it  is  but  justice 
to  say,  that  several  of  them  have  as  zealously  denied  that  the 
apostle,  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Romans,  describes  the  state  of 
one  who  is  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  very  properly  consider  the 
case  there  spoken  of  as  that  of  one  struggling  in  legal  bondage,  and 
brought  to  that  point  of  self  despair  and  of  conviction  of  sin  and  helpless- 
ness which  must  always  precede  an  entire  trust  in  the  merits  of  Christ's 
death,  and  the  power  of  his  salvation. 

3.  The  doctrine  before  us  is  disproved  by  those  passages  of  Scripture 
which  connect  our  entire  sanctification  with  subsequent  habits  and  acts, 
to  be  exhibited  in  the  conduct  of  believers  before  death.  So  in  the  quo- 
tation from  Rom.  vi,  just  given, — "  knowing  this,  that  the  body  of  sin 
might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin."  So  the 
exhortation  in  2  Cor.  vii,  1,  also  given  above,  refers  to  the  present  life, 
and  not  to  the  future  hour  of  our  dissolution  ;  and  in  1  Thess.  v,  23,  the 
apostle  first  prays  for  the  entire  sanctification  of  the  Thessalonians,  and 
then  for  their  •preservation  in  that  hallowed  state,  "  unto  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

4.  It  is  disproved,  also,  by  all  those  passages  which  require  us  to 
bring  forth  those  graces  and  virtues  which  are  usually  called  the  fi*uits 
of  the  Spirit.     Tliat  these  are  to  be  produced  during  our  life,  and  to  be 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    LNSTITUTES.  458 

displayed  in  our  spirit  and  conduct,  cannot  be  doubted ;  and  we  may 
then  ask  whether  they  are  required  of  us  in  perfection  and  maturity  ? 
If  so,  in  this  degree  of  maturity  and  perfection,  they  necessarily  suppose 
the  entire  sanctification  of  the  soul  from  the  opposite  and  antagonist 
evils.  Meekness  in  its  perfection  supposes  the  extinction  of  all  sinful 
anger ;  perfect  love  to  God,  supposes  that  no  affection  remains  contrary 
to  it ;  and  so  of  every  other  perfect  internal  virtue.  The  inquiry,  then, 
is  reduced  to  this,  whether  these  graces,  in  such  perfection  as  to  exclude 
the  opposite  corruptions  of  the  heart,  are  of  possible  attainment.  If 
they  are  not,  then  we  cannot  love  God  with  our  whole  hearts ;  then  we 
must  be  sometimes  sinfully  angry ;  and  how,  in  that  case,  are  we  to 
interpret  that  perfectness  in  these  graces  which  God  hath  required  of 
us,  and  promised  to  us  in  the  Gospel  ?  For  if  the  perfection  meant  (and 
let  it  be  observed  that  this  is  a  Scriptural  term,  and  must  mean  some- 
thing) be  so  comparative  as  that  we  may  be  sometimes  sinfully  angry, 
and  may  sometimes  divide  our  hearts  between  God  and  the  creature, 
we  may  apply  the  same  comparative  sense  of  the  term  to  good  words 
and  to  good  works,  as  well  as  to  good  affections.  Thus  when  the 
apostle  prays  for  the  Hebrews,  "  Now  the  God  of  peace  that  brought 
again  from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep, 
through  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant,  make  you  perfect  in  every 
good  work,  to  do  liis  will,"  we  must  understand  this  perfection  of  evan- 
gelical good  works  so  that  it  shall  sometimes  give  place  to  opposite  evil 
works,  just  as  good  affections  must  necessarily  sometimes  give  place  to 
the  opposite  bad  affections.  This  view  can  scarcely  be  soberly  enter- 
tained by  any  enlightened  Christian ;  and  it  must,  therefore,  be  con- 
cluded, that  the  standard  of  our  attainable  Christian  perfection,  as  to  the 
affections,  is  a  love  of  God  so  perfect  as  to  "  rule  the  heart,"  and  exclude 
all  rivalry,  and  a  meekness  so  perfect  as  to  cast  out  all  sinful  anger, 
and  prevent  its  return  ;  and  that  as  to  good  works,  the  rule  is,  that  we 
shall  be  so  "  perfect  in  every  good  work,"  as  to  "  do  the  will  of  God'* 
habitually,  fully,  and  constantly.  If  we  fix  the  standard  lower,  we  let 
in  a  hcense  totally  inconsistent  with  that  Christian  purity  which  is 
allowed  by  all  to  be  attainable,  and  we  make  every  man  himself  his 
own  interpreter  of  that  comparative  perfection  which  is  often  contended 
for  as  that  only  which  is  attainable. 

Some,  it  is  true,  admit  the  extent  of  the  promises  and  the  require- 
ments of  the  Gospel  as  we  have  stated  them ;  but  they  contend,  that 
this  is  the  mark  at  which  we  are  to  aim,  the  standard  toward  which  we 
are  to  aspire,  though  neither  is  attainable  fully  till  death.  But  this  view 
cannot  be  true  as  applied  to  sanctification,  or  deliverance  from  all  inward 
and  outward  sin.  That  the  degree  of  every  virtue  implanted  by  grace 
is  not  limited,  but  advances  and  grows  in  the  living  Christian  throughout 
life,  may  be  granted ;  and  through  eternity  also :  but  to  say  that  these 

2 


454  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

virtues  are  not  attainable,  through  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  in  that  degree 
which  shall  destroy  all  opposite  vice,  is  to  say,  that  God,  under  the 
Gospel,  requires  us  to  be  what  we  cannot  be,  either  through  want  of 
efficacy  in  his  grace,  or  from  some  defect  in  its  administration ;  neither 
of  which  has  any  countenance  from  Scripture,  nor  is  at  all  consistent 
with  the  terms  in  which  the  promises  and  exhortations  of  the  Gospel  are 
expressed.  It  is  also  contradicted  by  our  own  consciousness,  which 
charges  our  criminal  neglects  and  failures  upon  ourselves,  and  not  upon 
the  grace  of  God,  as  though  it  were  insufficient.  Either  the  consciences 
of  good  men  have  in  all  ages  been  delusive  and  over  scrupulous ;  or 
this  doctrine  of  the  necessary,  though  occasional,  dominion  of  sin  over 
us  is  false. 

5.  The  doctrine  of  the  necessary  indwelling  of  sin  in  the  soul  till 
death  involves  other  antiscriptural  consequences.  It  supposes  that  the 
geat  of  sin  is  in  the  flesh,  and  thus  harmonizes  with  the  pagan  philoso- 
phy, which  attributed  all  evil  to  matter.  The  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  on 
the  contrary,  is,  that  the  seat  of  sin  is  in  the  soul ;  and  it  makes  it  one 
of  the  proofs  of  the  fall  and  corruption  of  our  spiritual  nature,  that  we 
are  in  bondage  to  the  appetites  and  motions  of  the  flesh.  Nor  does  the 
theory  which  places  the  necessity  of  sinning  in  the  connection  of  the 
soul  with  the  body  account  for  the  whole  moral  case  of  man.  There 
are  sins,  as  pride,  covetousness,  malice,  and  others,  which  are  wholly 
spiritual ;  and  yet  no  exception  is  made  in  this  doctrine  of  the  necessary 
contiiiuance  of  sin  till  death  as  to  them.  There  is,  surely,  no  need  to 
wait  for  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body  in  order  to  be  saved 
from  evils  which  are  the  sole  offspring  of  the  spirit ;  and  yet  these  are 
made  as  inevitable  as  the  sins  which  more  immediately  connect  them- 
selves with  the  excitements  of  the  animal  nature. 

This  doctrine  supposes,  too,  that  the  flesh  must  necessarily  not  only 
lust  against  the  Spirit,  but  in  no  small  degree,  and  on  many  occasions, 
be  the  conqueror  ;  whereas,  we  are  commanded,  to  "  mortify  the  deeds 
of  the  body  ;"  to  ^^  crucify"  that  is,  to  put  to  death,  "  the  flesh  ;"  "/o 
put  off  the  old  man,"  which,  in  its  full  meaning,  must  import  separation 
from  sin  in  fact,  as  well  as  the  renunciation  of  it  in  will ;  and  "  to  put 
oji  the  new  man."  Finally,  the  apostle  expressly  states,  that  though  the 
flesh  stands  victoriously  opposed  to  legal  sanctification,  it  is  not  insuper- 
able by  evangehcal  holiness.- — "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do  in  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness 
pf  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condenmed  sin  in  the  flesh ;  that  the  right- 
eousness of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the 
iiesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,"  Rom.  viii,  3,  4.  So  inconsistent  with  the 
(declarations  and  promises  of  the  Gospel  is  the  notion  that,  so  long  as 
we  are  in  the  body,  "  the  flesh"  must  of  necessity  have  at  least  the  occa- 
sional dominion^ 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  455 

We  conclude,  therefore,  as  to  the  time  of  our  complete  sanctification ; 
or,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  the  destruction  of  the  body 
of  sin ;"  that  it  can  neither  be  referred  to  the  hour  of  death,  nor  placed 
subsequently  to  this  present  life.  The  attainment  of  perfect  freedom 
from  sin  is  one  to  which  beUevers  are  called  during  the  present  life ; 
and  is  necessary  to  that  completeness  of  "  holiness,"  and  of  those  active 
and  passive  graces  of  Christianity  by  which  they  are  called  to  glorify 
God  in  this  world,  and  to  edify  mankind. 

Not  only  the  time,  but  the  maimer  also,  of  our  sanctification  has  been 
matter  of  controversy  :  some  contending  that  all  attainable  degrees  of  it 
are  acquired  by  the  process  of  gradual  mortification  and  the  acquisition 
of  holy  habits ;  others  alleging  it  to  be  instantaneous,  and  the  fruit  of  an 
act  of  faith  in  the  Divine  promises. 

That  the  regeneration  which  accompanies  justification  is  a  large  ap- 
proach to  this  state  of  perfected  holiness ;  and  that  all  dying  to  sin,  and 
all  growth  in  grace,  advances  us  nearer  to  this  point  of  e7itire  sanctity,  is 
so  obvious,  that  on  these  points  there  can  be  no  reasonable  dispute.  But 
they  are  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  a  more  instantaneous  work,  when, 
the  depth  of  our  natural  depravity  being  more  painfully  felt,  we  plead  hi 
faith  the  accomplishment  of  the  promises  of  God.  The  great  question 
to  be  settled  is,  whether  the  deUverance  sighed  after  be  held  out  to  us  in 
these  promises  as  a  present  blessing  ?  And,  from  what  has  been  already 
said,  there  appears  no  ground  to  doubt  this ;  since  no  small  violence 
would  be  offered  to  the  passages  of  Scripture  already  quoted,  as  well  as 
to  many  others,  by  the  opposite  opinion.  All  the  promises  of  God  which 
are  not  expressly,  or  from  their  order,  referred  to  future  time,  are  ob- 
jects o^ present  trust;  and  their  fulfilment  now  is  made  conditional  only 
upon  our  faith.  They  cannot,  therefore,  be  pleaded  in  our  prayers, 
with  an  entire  reliance  upon  the  truth  of  God,  in  vain.  The  general 
promise  that  we  shall  receive  "  all  things  whatsoever  we  ask  in  prayer, 
beheving,"  comprehends,  of  course,  "  all  things"  suited  to  our  case  which 
God  has  engaged  to  bestow ;  and  if  the  entire  renewal  of  our  nature  be 
included  in  the  number,  without  any  limitation  of  time,  except  that  in 
which  we  ask  it  in  faith,  then  to  this  faith  shall  the  promises  of  entire 
sanctification  be  given ;  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  supposes  an 
instantaneous  work  immediately  following  upon  our  entire  and  unwaver- 
ing  faith. 

The  only  plausible  objections  made  to  this  doctrine  may  be  answered 
in  few  words. 

It  has  been  urged,  that  this  state  of  entire  sanctification  supposes  fu- 
ture  impeccability.  Certainly  not ;  for  if  angels  and  our  first  parents 
fell  when  in  a  state  of  immaculate  sanctity,  the  renovated  man  cannot 
be  placed,  by  his  entire  deliverance  from  inward  sin,  out  of  the  reach  of 
danger.     This,  remark,  also,  answers  the  allegation,  that  we  should  thus 


456  THEOLOGICAI.    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

be  removed  out  of  the  reach  of  temptation  ;  for  the  example  of  angels, 
and  of  the  first  man,  who  fell  by  temptation  when  in  a  state  of  native 
purity,  proves  that  the  absence  of  inward  evil  is  not  inconsistent  with  a 
3tate  of  probation  ;  and  that  this,  in  itself,  is  no  guard  against  the  attempts 
and  solicitations  of  evil. 

It  has  been  objected,  too,  that  this  supposed  state  renders  the  atone- 
ment  and  intercession  of  Christ  superfluous  in  future.  But  the  very  con- 
trary of  this  is  manifest  when  the  case  of  an  evangehcal  renewal  of  the 
soul  iij  righteousness  is  understood.  This  proceeds  from  the  grace  of 
God  in  Christ,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  efficient  cause ;  it  is 
received  by  faith  as  the  instrumental  cause ;  and  the  state  itself  into 
which  we  are  raised  is  maintained,  not  by  inherent  native  power,  but 
by  the  continual  presence  and  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
himself,  received  and  retained  in  answer  to  ceaseless  prayer ;  which 
prayer  has  respect  solely  to  the  merits  of  the  death  and  intercession  of 
Christ. 

It  has  been  farther  alleged,  that  a  person  delivered  from  all  inward 
and  outward  sin  has  no  longer  need  to  use  the  petition  of  the  Lord's 
prayer, — "  and  forgive  us  our  trespasses ;"  because  he  has  no  longer 
need  of  pardon.  To  this  we  reply,  1.  That  it  would  be  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  any  person  is  placed  under  the  necessity  of  "  trespassing,"  in 
order  that  a  general  prayer  designed  for  men  in  a  mixed  condition  might 
retain  its  aptness  to  every  particular  case.  2.  That  trespassing  of  every 
kind  and  degree  is  not  supposed  by  this  prayer  to  be  continued,  in  order 
that  it  might  be  used  always  in  the  same  import,  or  otherwise  it  might 
be  pleaded  against  the  renunciation  of  any  trespass  or  transgression 
whatever,  3.  That  this  petition  is  still  relevant  to  the  case  of  the  en- 
tirely sanctified  and  the  evangelically  perfect,  since  neither  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  first  man  nor  that  of  angels  is  in  question ;  that  is,  a  perfec- 
tion measured  by  the  perfect  law,  which,  in  its  obhgations,  contemplates 
all  creatures  as  having  sustained  no  injury  by  moral  lapse,  and  admits, 
therefore,  of  no  excuse  from  infirmities  and  mistakes  of  judgment ;  nor 
of  any  degree  of  obedience  below  that  which  beings  created  naturally 
perfect,  were  capable  of  rendering.  There  may,  however,  be  an  entire 
sanctification  of  a  being  rendered  naturally  weak  and  imperfect,  and  so 
liable  to  mistake  and  infirmity,  as  well  as  to  defect  in  the  degree  of  that 
absolute  obedience  and  service  which  the  law  of  God,  never  bent  or 
lowered  to  human  weakness,  demands  from  all.  These  defects,  and 
mistakes,  and  infirmities,  may  be  quite  consistent  with  the  entire  sanc- 
tification of  the  soul  and  the  moral  maturity  of  a  being  still  naturally 
infirm  and  imperfect.  Still,  farther,  if  this  were  not  a  sufficient  answer, 
it  may  be  remarked,  that  we  are  not  the  ultimate  judges  of  our  own 
case  as  to  our  "  trespasses,"  or  our  exemption  from  them  ;  and  we  are 
not,  therefore,  to  put  ourselves  into  the  place  of  God,  "  who  is  greater 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  457 

than  our  hearts."  So,  ahhough  St.  Paul  says,  "  I  know  nothing  by  my- 
self," that  is,  I  am  conscious  of  no  offence,  he  adds,  "  yet  am  I  not  hereby 
justified ;  but  he  that  judgeth  me  is  the  Lord :"  to  whom,  therefore,  the 
appeal  is  eveiy  moment  to  be  made  through  Christ  the  Mediator,  and 
who,  by  the  renewed  testimony  of  his  Spirit,  assures  every  true  believer 
of  his  acceptance  in  his  sight. 

Another  benefit  which  accrues  to  all  true  behevers,  is  the  right  to 
PRAY,  with  the  special  assurance  that  they  shall  be  heard  in  all  things 
which  are  according  to  the  will  of  God.  "  And  this  is  the  confidence 
that  we  have  in  him,  that,  if  we  ask  any  thing  according  to  his  will,  he 
heareth  us."  It  is  under  this  gracious  institution  that  all  good  men  are 
constituted  intercessors  for  others,  even  for  the  whole  world  ;  and  that 
God  is  pleased  to  order  many  of  his  dispensations,  both  as  to  individuals 
and  to  nations,  in  reference  to  "  his  elect  who  cry  day  and  night  unto 
him." 

With  respect  to  every  real  member  of  the  body  or  Church  of  Christ, 
the  PRo\'iDENCE  of  God  is  special ;  in  other  words,  they  are  individually 
considered  in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  this  life  by  the  Sove- 
reign Ruler,  and  their  measure  of  good  and  of  evil  is  appointed  with 
constant  reference  to  their  advantage,  either  in  this  life  or  in  eternity. 
"  The  hairs  of  their  head,"  are,  therefore,  said  to  be  "  numbered,"  and 
'^all  things"  are  declared  "to  work  together  for  their  good." 

To  them  also  victory  over  death  is  awarded.  They  are  freed 
from  its  fear  in  respect  of  consequences  in  another  state  ;  for  the  appre- 
hension of  future  punishment  is  removed  by  the  remission  of  their  sins, 
and  the  attestation  of  this  to  their  minds  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  a  pa- 
tient resignation  to  the  will  of  God,  as  to  the  measure  of  their  bodily 
sufferings,  and  the  strong  hopes  and  joyful  anticipations  of  a  better  hfe 
cancel  and  subdue  that  horror  of  pain  and  dissolution  which  is  natural 
to  man.  "  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood,  he  also  himself  took  part  of  the  same ;  that  through  death  he 
might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil ;  and 
deliver  them  who,  through  fear  of  death,  were  all  their  lite  time  subject 
to  bondage,"  Heb.  ii,  14,  15. 

The  immediate  reception  of  the  soul  into  a  state  of  blessed- 
ness after  death,  is  also  another  of  the  glorious  promises  of  the  new  co- 
venant to  all  them  that  endure  to  the  end,  and  "  die  in  the  Lord." 

This  is  so  explicitly  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  that,  but  for  the 
admission  of  a  philosophical  error,  it  would,  probably,  have  never  been 
doubted  by  any  persons  professing  to  receive  that  book,  as  of  Divine 
authority.  Till,  in  recent  times,  the  belief  in  the  materiality  of  the  hu- 
man soul  was  chiefly  confined  to  those  who  entirely  rejected  the  Chris- 
tian revelation ;  but,  when  the  Socinians  adopted  this  notion,  without 
wholly  rejecting  the  Scriptures,  it  was  promptly  perceived  that  the  doc- 


458  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

trine  of  an  intermediate  state,  and  the  materiality  of  the  soul,  could  not 
be  maintained  together ;  (4)  and  the  most  violent  and  disgraceful  criti- 
cisms  and  evasions  have,  therefore,  by  this  class  of  interpreters  been 
resorted  to,  in  order  to  save  a  notion  as  unphilosophical  as  it  is  contrary 
to  the  word  of  God.  Nothing  can  be  more  satisfactory  than  the  obser- 
vations of  Dr.  Campbell  on  this  subject. 

"  Many  expressions  of  Scripture,  in  the  natural  and  obvious  sense, 
imply  that  an  intermediate  and  separate  state  of  the  soul  is  actually  to 
succeed  death.  Such  are  the  words  of  the  Lord  to  the  penitent  thief 
upon  the  cross,  Luke  xxiii,  43.  Stephen's  dying  petition.  Acts  vii,  59. 
The  comparisons  which  the  Apostle  Paul  makes  in  different  places,  (2 
Cor.  V,  6,  &c ;  Phil,  i,  21,)  between  the  enjoyment  which  true  Chris- 
tians can  attain  by  their  continuance  in  this  world,  and  that  which  they 
enter  on  at  their  departure  out  of  it,  and  several  other  passages.  Let 
the  words  referred  to  be  read  by  any  judicious  person,  either  in  the  ori- 
ginal  or  in  the  common  translation,  which  is  sufficiently  exact  for  this 
purpose,  and  let  him,  setting  aside  all  theory  or  system,  say,  candidly, 
whether  they  would  not  be  understood,  by  the  gross  of  mankind,  as  pre- 
supposing that  the  soul  may  and  will  exist  separately  from  the  body,  and 
be  susceptible  of  happiness  or  misery  in  that  state.  If  any  thing  could 
add  to  the  native  evidence  of  the  expressions,  it  would  be  the  unnatural 
meanings  that  are  put  upon  them,  in  order  to  disguise  that  evidence. 
What  shall  we  say  of  the  metaphysical  distinction  introduced  for  this 
purpose  between  absolute  and  relative  time  ?  The  Apostle  Paul,  they 
are  sensible,  speaks  of  the  saints  as  admitted  to  enjoyment  in  the  pre- 
sence of  God,  immediately  after  death.  Now,  to  palhate  the  direct 
contradiction  there  is  in  this  to  their  doctrine,  that  the  vital  principle, 
which  is  all  they  mean  by  the  soul,  remains  extinguished  between  death 
and  the  resurrection,  they  remind  us  of  the  difference  there  is  between 
absolute  or  real  and  relative  or  apparent  tmie.  They  admit,  that  if  the 
apostle  be  understood  as  speaking  of  real  time,  what  is  said  flatly  con- 
tradicts their  system ;  but,  say  they,  his  words  must  be  interpreted  as 
spoken  only  of  apparent  time.  He  talks,  indeed,  of  entering  on  a  state 
of  enjoyment  immediately  after  death,  though  there  may  be  many  thou- 
sands of  years  between  the  one  and  the  other ;  for  he  means  only,  that 
when  that  state  shall  commence,  however  distant,  in  reality,  the  time 
may  be,  the  person  entering  upon  it  will  not  be  sensible  of  that  distance, 
and,  consequently,  there  will  be  to  him  an  apparent  coincidence  with  the 

(4)  A  few  divines,  and  but  few,  have  also  been  found,  who,  still  admitting  the 
essential  distinction  between  body  and  spirit,  have  thought  that  their  separation 
by  death  incapacitated  the  soul  for  the  exercise  of  its  powers.  This  suspension 
they  call  "the  sleep  of  the  soul."  With  the  Materialist  death  causes  the  entire 
annihilation,  for  the  time,  of  the  thinking  property  of  matter.  Both  opinions 
are,  however,  refuted  by  the  same  Scriptural  arguments. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  459 

tnoment  of  his  death.  But  does  the  apostle  any  where  give  a  hint  that 
this  is  his  meaning  ?  or  is  it  what  any  man  would  naturally  discover 
from  his  words  ?  That  it  is  exceedingly  remote  from  the  common  use 
of  language,  I  believe  hardly  any  of  those,  who  favour  this  scheme,  will 
be  partial  enough  to  deny.  Did  the  sacred  penmen  then  mean  to  put  a 
cheat  upon  the  world,  and,  by  the  help  of  an  equivocal  expression,  to 
flatter  men  with  the  hope  of  entering,  the  instant  they  expire,  on  a  state 
of  felicity,  when,  in  fact,  they  knew  that  it  would  be  many  ages  before 
it  would  take  place  ?  But  were  the  hypothesis  about  the  extinction  of 
the  mind  between  death  and  the  resurrection  well  founded,  the  apparent 
coincidence  they  speak  of  is  not  so  clear  as  they  seem  to  think  it.  For 
my  part,  I  cannot  regard  it  as  an  axiom,  and  I  never  heard  of  any  who 
attempted  to  demonstrate  it.  To  me  it  appears  merely  a  corollary  from 
Mr.  Locke's  doctrine,  which  derives  our  conceptions  of  time  from  the 
succession  of  our  ideas,  which,  whether  true  or  false,  is  a  doctrine  to  be 
found  only  among  certain  philosophers,  and  which,  we  may  reasonably 
believe,  never  came  into  the  heads  of  those  to  whom  the  Gospel,  in  the 
apostolic  age,  was  announced. 

"  I  remark  that  even  the  curious  equivocations  (or,  perhaps,  more 
properly,  mental  reservation)  that  has  been  devised  for  them,  will  not, 
in  every  case,  save  the  credit  of  apostolical  veracity.  The  words  of  Paul 
to  the  Corinthians  are,  Knowing  that  while  we  are  at  home  in  tJie  bodi/y 
we  are  absent  from  tJie  Lord ;  again,  we  are  willing  rather  to  be  absent 
from  the  body  and  present  with  the  Lord.  Could  such  expressions  have 
teen  used  by  him,  if  he  had  held  it  impossible  to  be  with  the  Lord,  or, 
indeed,  any  where,  without  the  body;  and  that,  whatever  the  change 
was  which  was  made  by  death,  he  could  not  be  in  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  till  he  returned  to  the  body  ?  Absence  from  the  body,  and  pre- 
^ence  with  the  Lord,  were  never,  therefore,  more  unfortunately  com- 
bined than  in  this  illustration.  Things  are  combined  here  as  coincident, 
which,  on  the  hypothesis  of  those  gentlemen,  are  incompatible.  If 
recourse  be  had  to  the  original,  the  expressions  in  Greek  are,  if  possi- 
ble, still  stronger.  They  are  6<  fv^rjjxouvrf^  sv  tw  owjw-arj,  those  who 
dwell  in  the  body,  who  are  SKdrni^avreg  aito  ra  Ku^ik,  at  a  distance  from 
the  Lord.  As,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  o<  sx^yj/jisvTS^  sx  rs  tfwjj.aro?, 
those  who  ham  travelled  out  of  the  body,  who  are  6j  £v5r)/xsvTS^  -tt^oj  rov 
K\)im,  tliose  wlw  reside,  or  are  present  with  the  Lord,  In  the  passage 
to  the  Philippians,  also,  the  commencement  of  his  presence  with  the 
Lord  is  represented  as  coincident,  not  with  his  return  to  the  body,  but 
with  his  leaving  it ;  with  the  dissolution,  not  with  the  restoratian  of  the 
union. 

"  From  the  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  the  sacred  writers  appear 
to  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  the  soul  and  the  body  are  naturally 
distinct  and  separable,  and  that  the  soul  is  susceptible  of  pain  or  plea^ 

2 


460  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

sure  in  a  state  of  separation.  It  were  endless  to  enumerate  all  the 
places  which  evince  this.  The  story  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus, 
Luke  xvi,  22,  23.  The  last  words  of  our  Lord  upon  the  cross,  Luke 
xxiii,  46,  and  of  Stephen,  when  dying.  Paul's  doubts,  whether  he  was 
in  the  body  or  out  of  the  body,  when  he  was  translated  to  the  third  hea- 
ven  and  paradise,  2  Cor.  xii,  2,  3,  4.  Our  Lord's  words  to  Thomas, 
to  satisfy  him  that  he  was  not  a  spirit,  Luke  xxiv,  39.  And,  to  con- 
clude, the  express  mention  of  the  denial  of  spirits  as  one  of  the  errors 
of  the  Sadducees.  Acts  xxiii,  8,  For  the  Sadducees  say  there  is  no 
resurrection,  neither  angel  nor  spirit,  /xs^s  ayys'kov  ij.s8s  -Trvsu^ct.  All 
these  are  irrefragable  evidences  of  the  general  opinion  on  this  sub- 
ject of  both  Jews  and  Christians.  By  spirit,  as  distinguished  from 
angel,  is  evidently  meant  the  departed  spirit  of  a  human  being  ;  for,  that 
man  is  here,  before  his  natural  death,  possessed  of  a  vital  and  intelligent 
principle,  which  is  commonly  called  his  soul  or  spirit,  it  was  never  pre- 
tended that  they  denied."  [Diss,  vi,  part  2.) 

In  this  intermediate,  but  felicitous  and  glorious  state,  the  disembodied 
spirits  of  the  righteous  will  remain  in  joy  and  felicity  with  Christ, 
until  the  general  judgment;  when  another  display  of  the  gracious 
effects  of  our  redemption,  by  Christ,  will  appear  in  the  glorious  re- 
surrection of  their  bodies  to  an  immortal  life  :  thus  distinguishing 
them  from  the  wicked,  whose  resurrection  will  be  to  "shame  and 
everlasting  contempt,"  or,  to  what  may  be  emphatically  termed,  an  im- 
Qiiortal  death. 

On  this  subject  no  point  of  discussion,  of  any  importance,  arises 
among  those  who  admit  the  truth  of  Scripture,  except  as  to  the  way  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  to  be  understood ; 
— whether  a  resurrection  of  the  substance  of  the  body  be  meant,  or  of 
some  minute  and  indestructible  part  of  it.  The  latter  theory  has  been 
adopted  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  certain  supposed  difficulties.  It  cannot, 
however,  fail  to  strike  every  impartial  reader  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  there  taught  without  any  nice  dis- 
tinctions. It  is  always  exhibited  as  a  miraculous  work ;  and  represents 
the  same  body  which  is  laid  in  the  grave  as  the  subject  of  this  change 
from  death  to  life,  by  the  power  of  Christ.  Thus,  our  Lord  was  raised 
in  the  same  body  in  which  he  died,  and  his  resurrection  is  constantly 
held  forth  as  the  model  of  ours ;  and  the  Apostle  Paul  expressly  says, 
*'  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his 
glorious  body."  The  only  passage  of  Scripture  which  appears  to 
favour  the  notion  of  the  rising  of  the  immortal  body  from  some  inde- 
structible germ,  is  1  Cor.  xv,  35,  &;c,  "  But  some  man  will  say,  How 
are  the  dead  raised  up,  and  with  what  body  do  they  come  ?  Thou  fool, 
that  which  thou  sowest  is  not  quickened  except  it  die ;  and  that  which 
thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  that  body  that  shall  be,  but  bare  grain,  it 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  461 

may  chance  of  wheat,  or  of  some  other  grain,"  &c.  If,  however,  it 
had  been  the  intention  of  the  apostle,  holding  this  view  of  the  case,  to 
meet  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  grounded  upon  the 
difficulties  of  conceiving  how  the  same  body,  in  the  popular  sense,  could 
be  raised  up  in  substance,  we  might  have  expected  him  to  correct  this 
misapprehension,  by  declaring  that  this  was  not  the  Christian  doctrine  ; 
but  that  some  small  parts  of  the  body  only,  bearing  as  little  proportion 
to  the  whole  as  the  germ  of  a  seed  to  the  plant,  would  be  preserved, 
and  be  unfolded  mto  the  perfected  body  at  the  resurrection.  Instead  of 
this,  he  goes  on  immediately  to  remind  the  objector  of  the  differences 
which  exist  between  material  bodies  as  they  now  exist ;  between  the 
plant  and  the  bare  or  naked  grain ;  between  one  plant  and  another ; 
between  the  flesh  of  men,  of  beasts,  of  fishes,  and  of  birds ;  between 
celestial  and  terrestrial  bodies ;  and  between  the  lesser  and  greater 
celestial  luminaries  themselves.  Still  farther  he  proceeds  to  state  the 
difference,  not  between  the  germ  of  the  body  to  be  raised,  and  the  body 
given  at  the  resurrection  ;  but  between  the  hody  itself,  understood  popu- 
larly, which  dies,  and  the  body  which  shall  be  raised.  "  It  is  sown  in 
corruption,  it  is  raised  in  incorruption,"  which  would  not  be  true  of  the 
supposed  incorruptible  and  imperishable  germ  of  this  hypothesis ;  and 
can  only  be  affirmed  of  the  body  itself,  considered  in  substance,  and  in 
its  present  state  corruptible.  Farther,  the  question  put  by  the  objector, 
"  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?"  does  not  refer  to  the  modus  agendi  of 
the  resurrection,  or  the  process  or  manner  in  which  the  thing  is  to  be 
effected,  as  the  advocates  of  the  germ  hypothesis  appear  to  assume. — 
This  is  manifest  from  the  answer  of  the  apostle,  who  goes  on  immedi- 
ately  to  state,  not  in  what  manner  the  resurrection  is  to  be  effected,  but 
what  shall  be  the  state  or  condition  of  the  resurrection  body,  which  is  no 
answer  at  all  to  the  question,  if  it  be  taken  in  that  sense. 

The  first  of  the  two  questions  in  the  passage  referred  to  relates  to 
the  possibility  of  the  resurrection,  "  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?" 
The  second  to  the  kind  of  body  which  they  are  to  take,  supposing  the 
fact  to  be  allowed.  Both  questions,  however,  imply  a  denial  of  the 
fact,  or,  at  least,  express  a  strong  doubt  concerning  it.  It  is  thus  that 
•B'ojj,  "  ^02^,"  in  the  first  question,  is  taken  in  many  passages  where  it  is 
connected  with  a  verb ;  (5)  and  the  second  question  only  expresses  the 

(5)  Gen.  xxxix,  9,  llwj  noivffo),  How  shall  I, — how  is  it  possible  that  I  should  do 
this  great  wickedness  ?  "  How,  then,  can  I,"  say  our  translators.  Exod.  vi^ 
12,  '♦  Behold,  the  children  of  Israel  have  not  hearkened  unto  me  ;  how,  then, 
shall  Pharaoh  hear  me  ?" — rrwj  eiaaKovercrai  fiov  ^apaw  ; — how  is  it  likely,  or  possi- 
ble, that  Pharaoh  should  hear  me  ?  See  also  verse  30.  Judges  xvi,  15,  *'  And 
she  said  unto  him,  IIwj  \sycis,  How  canst  thou  say  I  love  thee?"  2  Sam.  xi,  11, 
may  also  be  considered  in  the  LXX.  2  Kings  x,  4,  "  But  they  were  exceedingly 
afraid,  and  said,  Behold,  two  kings  stood  not  before  him:  koi  ttwj,  how  then  shall 
we  stand  ?" — how  is  it  posiyble  that  we  should  stand  ?     Job  ix,  2,  IIwj  yap  earot 

2 


462  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

general  negation  or  doubt  more  particularly,  by  implying,  that  the 
objector  could  not  conceive  of  any  kind  of  body  being  restored  to  man, 
which  would  not  be  an  evil  and  imperfection  to  him.  For  the  very  reason 
why  some  of  the  Christians  of  that  age  denied,  or  strongly  doubted,  the 
resurrection  of  the  body ;  explaining  it  figuratively,  and  saying  that  it 
was  past  already  ;  was,  that  they  were  mfluenced  to  this  by  the  notion 
of  their  philosophical  schools,  that  the  body  was  the  prison  of  the 
soul,  and  that  the  greatest  deliverance  men  could  experience  was  to  be 
eternally  freed  firom  their  connection  with  matter.  Hence  the  early 
philosophizing  sects  in  the  Christian  Church,  the  Gnostics,  Marcionites, 
&c,  denied  the  resurrection,  on  the  same  ground  as  the  philosophers, 
and  thought  it  opposed  to  that  perfection  which  they  hoped  to  enjoy  in 
another  world.  Such  persons  appear  to  have  been  in  the  Church  of 
Corinth  as  early  as  the  time  of  St.  Paul,  for  that  in  this  chapter  he  an- 
swers the  objections,  not  of  pagans,  but  of  professing  Christians,  appears 
from  verse  12,  "  How  say  some  among  you,  that  there  is  no  resurrec 
tion  of  the  dead  ?"  The  objection,  therefore,  in  the  minds  of  these  per- 
sons to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  did  not  lie  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  raising  up  of  the  substance  of  the  same  body,  so  that,  provided 
this  notion  could  be  dispensed  with,  they  were  prepared  to  admit,  that  a 
new  material  body  might  spring  from  its  germ,  as  a  plant  from  seed. — 

iiHaioi  (SpoTos ; — For  how  shall  mortal  man  be  just  with,  or  in  the  presence  of 
God? — how  is  it  possible?  See  what  follows.  Psalm  Ixxii,  (Ixxiii,)  11;  IIws 
tyvu)  0  Qtoi ;  "  How  dotli  God  know  ?" — how  is  it  possible  that  he  should  know  ? 
See  the  connection.  Jer.  viii,  8 ;  Hw?  tpctre,  "  How  do  ye  say," — how  is  that  ye 
say, — how  can  ye  say.  We  are  wise  ?  Ibid,  xxix,  7,  (xlvii,  7,)  Uios  Tjavxaoei ; 
"How  can  it," — the  sword  of  the  Lord, — "  be  quiet?"  Ezek.  xxxiii,  10,  "  If  our 
transgressions  and  our  sins  be  upon  us,  and  we  pine  away  in  them,  irus  l^j]cofiiQa ; 
how  should  we  then  live  ?"  Matt,  vii,  4,  "  Or  how,  rwj,  wilt  thou  say  to  thy 
brother  ?"  where  Rosenm.  observes  that  ttw?  has  the  force  of  negation.  Ibid, 
xii,  26,  "  If  Satan  cast  out  Satan,  he  is  divided  against  himself;  irws  ow  ^aOrjacrait 
how  shall  then," — how  can  then, — "  his  kingdom  stand  ?"  See  also  Luke  xi,  18. 
Ibid,  xxiii,  33,  "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  ttws  (pvyr/Te,  how  can  ye 
escape  the  damnation  of  hell?"  "qui  fieri  potest?''  Rosenm.  Mark  iv,  40, 
IIuj  UK  cxere  viariv  ;  "  How  is  it  that  ye  have  no  faith  ?"  Luke  i,  34,  may  also  be 
adduced.  John  v,  47,  "  If  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  ttwj — marevaeTe;  bow  shall 
ye," — how  can  ye — "  believe  my  words  ?"  Rom.  iii,  6,  "  God  forbid  :  for  then, 
wus  Kfuvti,  how  shall  God  judge  the  world  ?" — how  is  it  possible  ?  See  the  preced- 
ing  verse.  Ibid,  viii,  32,  IIws — x'^9'-'^^'^^'- »  "  How  shall  he  not," — how  is  it  possi- 
ble but  that  he  should, — "  with  him  also  freely  give  us  all  things."  Ibid,  x,  14, 
Huts — iiciicaXeaovTai,  "  How  then  shall  they," — how  is  it  possible  that  they  should, 
— "  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?"  &c,  1  Tim.  iii,  5,  "  For 
if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house,  ttw?,  how  shall  he  take  care  of 
the  Church  of  God  ?"  Heb.  ii,  3,  "  How  shall  we  escape," — how  is  it  possible 
that  we  should  escape, — "  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation  ?"  1  John  iii,  17,  IIw^, 
"  How  dwelleth  the  love  of  God  in  him  ?" — how  can  it  dwell  ?  Comp.  chap,  iv, 
20,  where  iwarai  is  added. 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  463 

They  stumbled  at  the  doctrine  in  every  form,  because  it  involved  the 
circumstance  of  the  reunion  of  the  spirit  with  matter,  which  they 
thought  an  evil.  When,  therefore,  the  objector  asks,  "  How  are  the 
dead  raised  up  ?"  (6)  he  is  to  be  understood,  not  as  inquiring  as  to  the 
process,  but  as  to  the  possibility.  The  doubt  may,  indeed,  be  taken  as 
an  implied  negation  of  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection  with  reference 
to  God ;  and  then  the  apostle,  by  referring  to  the  springing  up  of  the 
grain  of  corn,  when  dissolved  and  putrefied,  may  be  understood  to  show 
that  the  event  was  not  inconceivable,  by  referring  to  God's  omnipotence, 
as  shown  in  his  daily  providence,  wliich,  a  jpriori,  would  appear  as  mar- 
vellous  and  incredible.  But  it  is  much  more  probable,  that  the  impos- 
sibility  implied  in  this  question  refers,  not  to  the  power  of  God,  which 
every  Christian  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  must  be  supposed  to  have  been 
taught  to  conceive  of  as  almighty,  and,  therefore,  adequate  to  the  pro- 
duction of  this  effect ;  but  as  relating  to  the  contrariety  which  was 
assumed  to  exist  between  the  doctrine  of  the  reunion  of  the  soul  with 
the  body,  and  those  hopes  of  a  higher  condition  in  a  future  life,  which 
both  reason  and  revelation  taught  them  to  form.  The  second  question, 
"  With  what  body  do  they  come  ?"  like  the  former,  is  a  question  not 
of  inquiry,  but  of  denial,  or,  at  least,  of  strong  doubt,  importing,  that  no 
idea  could  be  entertained  by  the  objector  of  any  material  body  being 
made  the  residence  of  a  disenthralled  spirit,  which  could  comport  with 
those  notions  of  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  by  death, 
which  the  philosophy  of  the  age  had  taught,  and  which  Christianity 
itself  did  not  discountenance.  The  questions,  though  different,  come, 
therefore,  nearly  to  the  same  import,  and  this  explains  why  the  apostle 
chiefly  dwells  upon  the  answer  to  the  latter  only,  by  which,  in  fact,  he 
replies  to  both.  Tlie  grain  cast  into  the  earth  even  dies  and  is  cor- 
rupted,  and  that  which  is  sown  is  not  "  the  body  which  shall  be,"  in  form 
and  quaUty,  but  "naked  grain;"  yet  into  the  plant,  in  its  perfect  form, 
is  the  same  matter  transformed.  So  the  flesh  of  beasts,  birds,  fishes, 
and  man,  is  the  same  matter,  though  exhibiting  different  qualities.  So 
also  bodies  celestial  are  of  the  same  matter  as  "  bodies  terrestrial ;"  and 
the  more  splendid  luminaries  of  the  heavens  are,  in  substance,  the  same 
as  those  of  inferior  glory.  It  is  thus  that  the  apostle  reaches  his  con- 
clusion, and  shows  that  the  doctrine  of  our  reunion  with  the  body 
implies  in  it  no  imperfection — nothing  contrary  to  the  hopes  of  libera- 
tion "  from  the  burden  of  this  flesh  ;"  because  of  the  high  and  glorified 
qualities  which  God  is  able  to  give  to  matter ;  of  which  the  superior 
purity,  splendour,  and  energy  of  some  material  things  in  this  world,  in 
comparison  of  others,  is  a  visible  demonstration.  For  after  he  has  given 
these  instances,  he  adds,  "  So  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ;  it  is  sown 

(6)  The  present  indicative  verb  is  here  used,  as  it  is  generally  throughout  this 
chapter,  for  the  future. 

2 


464  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

in  corruption,  it  is  raised  in  incorruption ;  it  is  sown  in  dishonour,  it  is 
raised  in  glory  ;  it  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in  power ;  it  is  sown 
a  natural  (an  animal)  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body,"  so  called,  "  as 
being  accommodated  to  a  spirit,  and  far  excelling  all  that  is  required 
for  the  transaction  of  earthly  and  terrene  affairs  ;"  {Rosenmuller ;)  and 
so  intent  is  the  apostle  on  dissipating  all  those  gross  representations  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body  which  the  objectors  had  assumed  as  the 
ground  of  their  opposition,  and  which  they  had,  probably,  in  their  dispu- 
tations, placed  under  the  strongest  views,  that  he  guards  the  true  Christian 
doctrine,  on  this  point,  in  the  most  explicit  manner,  "  Now  this  I  say, 
brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  neither 
doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption ;"  and,  therefore,  let  no  man  hence- 
forward affirm,  or  assume  it  in  his  argument,  that  we  teach  any  such 
doctrine.  This,  also,  he  strengthens,  by  showing,  that  as  to  the  saints 
who  are  alive  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  they  also  shall  be  in  like 
manner  "  cha^tged,"  and  that  "  this  corruptible,"  as  to  them  also,  "  shall 
put  on  incorruption." 

Thus,  in  the  argument,  the  apostle  confines  himself  wholly  to  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  in  a  refined  and  glorified  state ; 
but  omits  all  reference  to  the  mode  in  which  the  thing  will  be  effected, 
as  being  out  of  the  line  of  the  objector's  questions,  and  in  itself  above 
human  thought,  and  wholly  miraculous.  It  is,  however,  clear,  that  when 
he  speaks  o(the  body  as  the  subject  of  this  wondrous  "  change,"  he  speaks 
of  it  popularly,  as  the  same  body  in  substance,  whatever  changes  in  its 
qualities  or  figure  may  be  impressed  upon  it.  Great  general  changes  it 
will  experience,  as  from  corruption  to  incorruption,  from  mortality  to  im- 
mortality ;  great  changes  of  a  particular  kind  will  also  take  place,  as  its 
being  freed  from  deformities  and  defects,  and  the  accidental  varieties  pro- 
duced by  climate,  ahments,  labour,  and  hereditary  diseases.  It  is  also 
laid  down  by  our  Lord,  that,  "  in  the  resurrection  they  shall  neither 
marry  nor  be  given  in  marriage,  but  be  hke  to  the  angels  of  God  ;"  and 
this  also  implies  a  certain  change  of  structure ;  and  we  may  gather  from 
the  declaration  of  the  apostle,  that  though  "  the  stomach"  is  now  adapted 
"  to  meats,  and  meats  to  the  stomach,  God  will  destroy  both  it  and  them ;" 
that  the  animal  appetite  for  food  will  be  removed,  and  the  organ  now 
adapted  to  that  appetite  have  no  place  in  the  renewed  frame.  But  great 
as  these  changes  are,  the  human  form  will  be  retained  in  its  perfection, 
afler  the  model  of  our  Lord's  "  glorious  body,"  and  the  substance  of  the 
matter  of  which  it  is  composed  will  not  thereby  be  affected.  That  the 
same  body  which  was  laid  in  the  grave  shall  arise  out  of  it,  is  the  mani- 
fest doctrine  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  notion  of  an  incorruptible  germ,  or  that  of  an  original  and  un- 
changeable stameUf  out  of  which  a  new  and  glorious  body,  at  the  resurrec- 
tion, is  to  spring,  appears  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  speculations  of 
2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  465 

some  of  the  Jewish  rabbins,  who  speak  of  some  such  supposed  part  in 
the  human  frame,  under  the  name  luz,  to  which  they  ascribe  marvellous 
properties,  and  from  which  the  body  was  to  arise.  No  allusion  is,  how- 
ever  made  to  any  such  opinion  by  the  early  fathers,  in  their  defences  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  On  the  contrary,  they  argue 
in  such  a  way  as  to  prove  the  possibility  of  the  reunion  of  the  scattered 
parts  of  the  body  ;  which  sufficiently  shows  that  the  germ  theory  had  not 
been  resorted  to,  by  Christian  divines  at  least,  in  order  to  harmonize  th6 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  with  philosophy.  So  Justin  Martyr,  in  a 
fragment  of  his  concerning  the  resurrection,  expressly  answers  the  objec- 
tion, that  it  is  impossible  for  the  llesh,  after  a  corruption  and  perfect 
dissolution  of  all  its  parts,  should  be  united  together  again,  and  contends, 
"  that  if  the  body  be  not  raised  complete,  with  all  its  integral  parts,  it 
would  argue  a  want  of  power  in  God ;"  and  although  some  of  the 
Jews  adopted  the  notion  of  the  germinating  or  springing  up  of  the  body 
from  some  one  indestructible  part,  yet  the  most  orthodox  of  their  rab- 
bins contended  for  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body.  So  Maimonides 
says,  "  Men,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  before  lived,  with  the  same 
body,  shall  be  restored  to  life  by  God,  and  sent  into  this  life  with  the  same  ' 
identity :"  and  "  that  nothing  can  properly  be  called  a  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  but  the  return  of  the  very  same  soul,  into  the  very  same  body 
from  which  it  was  separated."  (Ramham  apud  Pocockium  in  Notis  Mis- 
cellan.  Port.  Mos.  p.  125.) 

This  theory,  under  its  various  forms,  and  whether  adopted  by  Jews  or 
Christians,  was  designed,  doubtless,  to  render  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead  less  difficult  to  conceive,  and  more  acceptable  to  philo- 
sophic minds ;  but,  hke  most  other  attempts  of  the  same  kind  to  bring 
down  the  supernatural  doctrines  of  revelation  to  the  level  of  our  concep- 
tions, it  escapes  none  of  the  original  difficulties,  and  involves  itself  in 
others  far  more  perplexing. 

For  if  by  this  hypothesis  it  was  designed  to  remove  the  difficulty  of 
conceiving  how  the  scattered  parts  of  one  body  could  be  preserved  from 
becoming  integral  parts  of  other  bodies,  it  supposes  that  the  constant 
care  of  Providence  is  exerted  to  maintain  the  incorruptibility  of  those  in- 
dividual germs,  or  stamina,  so  as  to  prevent  their  assimilation  with  each 
other.  Now,  if  they  have  this  by  original  quality,  then  the  same  quality 
may  just  as  easily  be  supposed  to  appertain  to  every  particle  which  com- 
poses a  human  body ;  so  that  though  it  be  used  for  food,  it  shall  not  be 
capable  of  assimilation,  in  any  circumstances,  with  another  human  body. 
But  if  these  germs  or  stamina,  have  not  this  quality  by  their  original 
nature,  they  can  only  be  prevented  from  assimilating  with  each  other  by 
that  operation  of  God  which  is  present  to  all  his  works,  and  which 
must  always  be  directed  to  secure  the  execution  of  his  own  ultimate 
designs.  If  this  view  be  adopted,  then,  if  the  resort  must  at  last  be  to 
Vol.  II.  30 


466  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  superintendence  of  a  Being  of  infinite  power  and  wisdom,  there  is  no 
greater  difficulty  in  supposing  that  his  care  to  secure  this  object  shall  ex- 
tend to  a  million  than  to  a  thousand  particles  of  matter.  This  is,  in  fact,  the 
true  and  rational  answer  to  the  objection  that  the  same  piece  of  matter  may 
happen  to  be  a  part  of  two  or  more  bodies,  as  in  the  instances  of  men 
feeding  upon  animals  which  have  fed  upon  men,  and  of  men  feeding  upon 
one  another.  The  question  here  is  one  which  simply  respects  the  frus- 
trating a  final  purpose  of  the  Almighty  by  an  operation  of  nature.  To 
suppose  that  he  cannot  prevent  this,  is  to  deny  his  power  ;  to  suppose 
him  inattentive  to  it,  is  to  suppose  him  indifferent  to  his  own  designs ;  and 
to  assume  that  he  employs  care  to  prevent  it,  is  to  assume  nothing 
greater,  nothing  in  fact  so  great,  as  many  instances  of  control,  which 
are  always  occurring ;  as,  for  instance,  the  regulation  of  the  proportion 
of  the  sexes  in  human  births,  which  cannot  be  attributed  to  chance, 
but  must  either  be  referred  to  superintendence,  or  to  some  original 
law. 

Thus  these  theories  afford  no  rehef  to  the  only  real  difficulty  involved 
in  the  doctrine,  but  leave  the  whole  case  still  to  be  resolved  into  the 
almighty  power  of  God.  But  they  involve  themselves  in  the  fatal  objec- 
tion, that  they  are  plainly  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures. 
For,— 

1.  There  is  no  resurrection  of  the  body  on  this  hypothesis,  because  the 
germ  or  stamina,  can  in  no  good  sense  be  called  "  the  body.''''  If  a  finger, 
or  even  a  limb,  is  not  the  body,  much  less  can  these  minuter  parts  be 
entitled  to  this  appellation. 

2.  There  is,  on  these  theories,  no  resurrection  at  all.  For  if  the  pre- 
served part  be  a  germ,  and  the  analogy  of  germination  be  adopted ; 
then  we  have  no  longer  a  resurrection  from  deaths  but  a  vegetation  from 
a  suspended  principle  of  secret  life.  If  the  stamina  of  Leibnitz  be  con- 
tended for,  then  the  body,  into  which  the  soul  enters  at  the  resurrection, 
with  the  exception  of  these  minute  stamina,  is  provided  for  it  by  the 
addition  and  aggregation  of  new  matter,  and  we  have  a  creation,  not  a 
resurrection. 

3.  If  bodies  in  either  of  these  modes,  are  to  be  framed  for  the  soul,  by 
the  addition  of  a  large  mass  of  new  matter,  the  resurrection  is  made 
substantially  the  same  with  the  pagan  notion  of  the  metempsychosis ;  and 
if  St.  Paul,  at  Athens,  preached,  not  "  Jesus  and  the  resurrection,"  but 
Jesus  and  a  transmigration  into  a  new  body,  it  will  be  difficult  to  account 
for  his  hearers  scoffing  at  a  doctrine,  which  had  received  the  sanction  of 
several  of  their  own  philosophic  authorities. 

Another  objection  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body  has  been  drawn  from 

the  changes  of  its  substance  during  life.     The  answer  to  this  is,  that 

allowing  a  frequent  and  total  change  of  the  substance  of  the  body  (which, 

however,  is  but  an  hypothesis)  to  take  place,  it  effects  not  the  doctrine  of 

2 


SECOND.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  467 

Scripture,  which  is,  that  the  body  which  is  laid  in  the  grave  shall  be 
raised  up.  But  then  we  are  told,  that  if  our  bodies  have  in  fact  under- 
gone  successive  changes  during  life,  the  bodies  in  which  we  have  sinned 
or  performed  rewardable  actions  may  not  be,  in  many  instances,  the 
same  bodies  as  those  which  will  be  actually  rewarded  or  punished.  We 
answer,  that  rewards  and  punishments  have  their  relation  to  the  body, 
not  so  much  as  it  is  the  subject  but  the  instrument  of  reward  and  punish- 
ment. It  is  the  soul  only  which  perceives  pain  or  pleasure,  which  suf- 
fers or  enjoys,  and  is,  therefore,  the  only  rewardable  subject.  Were 
we,  therefore,  to  admit  such  corporeal  mutations  as  are  aissumed  in  this 
objection,  they  affect  not  the  case  of  our  accountability.  The  personal 
identity  or  sameness  of  a  rational  being,  as  Mr.  Locke  has  observed, 
consists  in  self  consciousness  : — "  By  this  every  one  is  to  himself  what 
he  calls  self,  without  considering  whether  that  self  be  continued  in  the 
same  or  divers  substances.  It  was  by  the  same  self  which  reflects  on 
an  action  done  many  years  ago,  that  the  action  was  performed."  If 
there  were  indeed  any  weight  in  this  objection,  it  would  affect  the  pro- 
ceedings of  human  criminal  courts  in  all  cases  of  offences  committed  at 
some  distance  of  time  ;  but  it  contradicts  the  common  sense,  because  it 
contradicts  the  common  consciousness  and  experience  of  mankind. 


PART  THIRD. 

THE  MORALS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  Moral  Law. 

Of  the  law  of  God,  as  the  subject  of  a  Divine  and  adequately 
authenticated  revelation,  some  observations  were  made  in  the  first  part 
of  this  work.  That  such  a  law  exists,  so  communicated  to  mankind, 
and  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ; — that  we  are  under  obligation  to 
obey  it  as  the  declared  will  of  our  Creator  and  Lord ; — that  this  obU- 
gation  is  grounded  upon  our  natural  relation  to  him  as  creatures  made 
by  his  power,  and  dependent  upon  his  bounty,  are  points  which  need 
not,  therefore,  be  again  adverted  to,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  dwell  upon 
the  circumstances  and  degrees  of  its  manifestation  to  men,  under  those 
former  dispensations  of  the  true  religion  which  preceded  Christianity, 
We  have  exhibited  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  as  they  are 
found  in  that  perfected  system  of  revealed  religion,  which  we  owe  to 
our  Saviour,  and  to  his  apostles,  who  wrote  under  the  inspiration  of  that 
Holy  Spirit  whom  he  sent  forth  "  to  lead  them  into  all  truth  ;"  and  we 
shall  now  find  in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  and  in  the  apostoUcal 
writings,  a  system  of  moral  principles,  virtues,  and  duties,  equalling  in 
fulness  and  perfection  that  great  body  of  doctrinal  truth  which  is 
contained  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  deriving  from  it  its  vital  influence 
and  efficacy. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  noticed,  that  the  morals  of  the  New  Testament 
are  not  proposed  to  us  in  the  form  of  a  regular  code.  Even  in  the 
books  of  Moses,  which  have  the  legislative  form  to  a  great  extent,  all 
the  principles  and  duties  which  constituted  the  full  character  of  "  godli- 
ness," under  that  dispensation,  are  not  made  the  subjects  of  tbrmal 
injunction  by  particular  precepts.  They  are  partly  infolded  in  general 
principles,  or  often  take  the  form  of  injunction  in  an  apparently  inci- 
dental manner,  or  are  matters  of  obvious  inference.  A  preceding  code 
of  traditionary  moral  law  is  also  all  along  supposed  in  the  writings  of 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  as  well  as  a  consuetudinary  ritual  and  a  doc- 
trinal theology ;  both  transmitted  from  the  patriarchs.  This,  too,  is 
eminently  the  case  with  Christianity.  It  supposes  that  all  who  believed 
in  Christ  admitted  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  it 
assumes  the  perpetual  authority  of  its  morals,  as  well  as  the  truth  of  its 
fundamental  tlieology.     The  constant  allusions  in  the  New  Testament 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  469 

to  the  moral  rules  of  the  Jews  and  patriarchs,  either  expressly  as  pre- 
cepts,  or  as  the  data  of  argument,  sufficiently  guard  us  against  the 
notion,  that  what  has  not  in  so  many  words  been  re-enacted  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles  is  of  no  authority  among  Christians.  In  a  great  num- 
ber of  instances,  however,  the  form  is  directly  preceptive,  so  as  to  have 
all  the  explicitness  and  force  of  a  regular  code  of  law  ;  and  is,  as  much 
as  a  regular  code  could  be,  a  declaration  of  the  sovereign  will  of  Christ, 
enforced  by  the  sanctions  of  eternal  life  and  death. 

This,  however,  is  a  point  on  which  a  few  confirmatory  observations 
may  be  usefully  adduced. 

No  part  of  the  preceding  dispensation,  designated  generally  by  the 
appellation  of  "  the  law,"  is  repealed  in  the  New  Testament,  but  what 
is  obviously  ceremonial,  typical,  and  incapable  of  co-existing  witli  Chris- 
tianity. Our  Lord,  in  his  discourse  with  the  Samaritan  woman,  declares, 
that  the  hour  of  the  abohtion  of  the  temple  worship  was  come ;  the 
Apostle  Paul,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  teaches  us  that  the  Leviti- 
cal  services  were  but  shadows,  the  substance  and  end  of  which  is  Christ ; 
and  the  ancient  visible  Church,  as  constituted  upon  the  ground  of  natural 
descent  from  Abraham,  was  abolished  by  the  estabhshment  of  a  spiritual 
body  of  believers  to  take  its  place. 

No  precepts  of  a  purely  political  nature,  that  is,  which  respect  the 
civil  subjection  of  the  Jews  to  their  theocracy,  are,  therefore,  of  any 
force  to  us  as  laws,  although  they  may  have,  in  many  cases,  the  greatest 
authority  as  principles.  No  ceremonial  precepts  can  be  binding,  since 
they  were  restrained  to  a  period  terminating  with  the  death  and  resur- 
rcction  of  Christ ;  nor  are  even  the  patriarchal  rites  of  circumcision  and 
the  passover  obligatory  upon  Christians,  since  we  have  sufficient  evi- 
dence, that  they  were  of  an  adumbrative  character,  and  were  laid  aside 
by  the  first  inspired  teachers  of  Christianity. 

With  the  MORAL  precepts  which  abound  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
case  is  very  different,  as  sufficiently  appears  from  the  different  and  even 
contrary  manner  in  which  they  are  always  spoken  of  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  When  our  Lord,  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount,  says,  "  Think 
not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets ;  I  am  not  come 
to  destroy  the  law ;  but  to  fulfil ;"  that  is,  to  confirm  or  establish  it ; — 
the  entire  scope  of  his  discourse  shows,  that  he  is  speaking  exclusively 
of  the  moral  precepts  of  the  law,  eminently  so  called,  and  of  the  moral 
injunctions  of  the  prophets  founded  upon  them,  and  to  which  he  thus 
gives  an  equal  authority.  And  in  so  solemn  a  manner  does  he  enforce 
this,  that  he  adds,  doubtless  as  foreseeing  that  attempts  would  be  made 
by  deceiving  or  deceived  men  professing  his  religion  to  lessen  the 
authority  of  the  moral  law, — "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break  one 
of  these  least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called 
the  least,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;"  that  is,  as  St.  Chrysostom  inter- 

2 


470  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

prets,  "  he  shall  be  the  farthest  from  attaining  heaven  and  happiness, 
which  imports  that  he  shall  not  attain  it  at  all." 

In  like  manner  St.  Paul,  after  having  strenuously  maintained  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  anticipates  an  objection  by  ask- 
ing, "  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith  ?"  and  subjoins, 
?♦  God  forbid,  yea,  we  establish  the  law :"  meaning  by  "  the  law,"  as 
the  context  and  his  argument  shows,  the  moral  and  not  the  ceremonial 
law. 

After  such  declarations  it  is  worse  than  trifling  for  any  to  contend, 
that,  in  order  to  estabhsh  the  authority  of  the  moral  law  of  the  Jews 
over  Christians,  it  ought  to  have  been  formally  re-enacted.    To  this  we 
may,  however,  farther  reply,  not  only  that  many  important  moral  prin- 
ciples and  rules  found  in  the  Old  Testament  were  never  formally 
enacted  among  the  Jews,  were  traditional  from  an  earher  age,  and 
received  at  different  times  the  more  indirect  authority  of  inspired  recog- 
nition ;   but,  to  put  the  matter  in  a  stronger  light,  that  all  the  leading 
moral  precepts  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  are,  in  point  of  fact,  proposed 
jn  a  manner  which  has  the  full  force  of  formal  re-enactment,  as  the 
Jaws  of  the  Christian  Church.     This  argument,  from  the  want  of  formal 
re-enactment,  has  therefore  no  weight.     The  summary  of  the  law  and 
the  prophets,  which  is  to  love  God  with  all  our  heart,  and  to  serve  him 
with  all  our  strength,  and  to  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  is  unques- 
tionably enjoined,    and   even  re-enacted  by  the   Christian  Lawgiver. 
When  our  Lord  is  expUcitly  asked  by  "  one  who  came  imto  him,  and 
said,  Good  Master,  what  good  thing  shall  I  do,  that  I  may  have  eternal 
life?"   the  answer  given  shows  that  the  moral  law  contained  in  the 
decalogue  is  so  in  force  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  that  obedience 
to  it  is  necessary  to  final  salvation  : — <'  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep 
the  commandments."     And  that  nothing  ceremonial  is  intended  by  this 
term  is  manifest  from  what  follows.     "  He  saith  unto  him.  Which  ? 
Jesus  said.  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.     Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 
Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  &c.  Matt,  xix,  17-19.     Here,  also,  we  have  all 
the  force  of  a  formal  re-enactment  of  the  decalogue,  a  part  of  it  being 
evidently  put  for  the  whole.     Nor  were  it  diflicult  to  produce  passages 
from  the  discourses  of  Christ  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  which 
enjoin  all  the  precepts  of  this  law  taken  separately,  by  their  authority, 
as  indispensable  parts  of  Christian  duty,  and  that,  too,  under  their  original 
sanctions  of  life  and  death :  so  that  the  two  circumstances  which  form 
the  true  character  of  a  law  in  its  highest  sense.  Divine  authority 
and  PENAL  SANCTIONS,  are  found  as  truly  in  the  New  Testament  as  in 
the  Old.     It  will  not,  for  instance,  be  contended,  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  enjoin  the  acknowledgment  and  worship  of  one  God 
alone ;  nor  that  it  does  not  prohibit  idolatry  ;  nor  that  it  does  not  level 
its  maledictions  against  false  and  profane  swearing  ;  nor  that  the  Apostle 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  471 

Paul  does  not  use  the  very  words  of  the  fifth  commandment  preceptively 
when  he  says,  Eph.  vi,  2,  "  Honour  thy  father  and  mother,  which  is  the 
first  commandment  with  promise ;"  nor  that  murder,  aduUery,  theft, 
false  witness,  and  covetousness,  are  not  all  prohibited  under  pain  of 
exclusion  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  Thus,  then,  we  have  the  whole 
decalogue  brought  into  the  Christian  code  of  morals  by  a  distinct 
injunction  of  its  separate  precepts,  and  by  their  recognition  as  of  per- 
manent and  unchangeable  obligation  :  the  fourth  commandment,  respect- 
ing the  Sabbath  only,  being  so  far  excepted,  that  its  injunction  is  not  so 
expressly  marked.  This,  however,  is  no  exception  in  fact ;  for  beside 
that  its  original  place  in  the  two  tables  sufficiently  distinguishes  it  from 
all  positive,  ceremonial,  and  typical  precepts,  and  gives  it  a  moral  cha- 
racter, in  respect  of  its  ends,  which  are,  first,  mercy  to  servants  and 
cattle,  and,  second,  the  worship  of  Almighty  God,  undisturbed  by  worldly 
interruptions  and  cares,  it  is  necessarily  included  in  that  "  law"  which 
our  Lord  declares  he  came  not  to  destroy,  or  abrogate ;  in  that  "  law" 
which  St.  Paul  declares  to  be  "  established  by  faith ;"  and  among  those 
"  commandments"  which  our  Lord  declares  must  be  "  kept,"  if  any  one 
would  "  enter  into  life."  To  this,  also,  the  practice  of  the  apostles  is  to 
be  added,  who  did  not  cease  themselves  from  keeping  one  day  in  seven 
holy,  nor  teach  others  so  to  do ;  but  gave  to  "  the  Lord's  day"  that 
eminence  and  sanctity  in  the  Christian  Church  which  the  seventh  day 
had  in  the  Jewish,  by  consecrating  it  to  holy  uses ;  an  akeration  not 
affecting  the  precept  at  all,  except  in  an  unessential  circumstance,  (if, 
indeed,  in  that,)  and  in  which  we  may  suppose  them  to  act  under  Divine 
suggestion. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  the  obligation  of  the  whole  decalogue  as  fully 
estabhshed  in  the  New  Testament  as  in  the  Old  as  if  it  had  been  for- 
mally re-enacted ;  and  that  no  formal  re-enactment  of  it  took  place,  is 
itself  a  presumptive  proof  that  it  was  never  regarded  by  the  Lawgiver 
as  temporary',  which  the  formality  of  republication  might  have  supposed. 

It  is  important  to  remark,  however,  that  although  the  moral  laws  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation  pass  into  the  Christian  code,  they  stand  there 
in  other  and  higher  circumstances ;  so  that  the  New  Testament  is  a 
more  perfect  dispensation  of  the  knowledge  of  the  moral  will  of  God  than 
the  old.     In  particular, 

1.  They  are  more  expressly  extended  to  the  heart,  as  by  our  Lord, 
in  his  sermon  on  the  mount ;  who  teaches  us  that  the  thought  and  in- 
ward purpose  of  any  offence  is  a  violation  of  the  law  prohibiting  its 
external  and  visible  commission. 

2.  The  principles  on  which  they  are  founded  are  carried  out  in  the 
New  Testament  into  a  greater  variety  of  duties,  which,  by  embracing 
more  perfectly  the  social  and  civil  relations  of  life,  are  of  a  more  univer- 

gal  character. 

2 


472  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

3.  There  is  a  much  more  enlarged  injunction  of  positive  and  particu- 
lar  virtues,  especially  those  which  constitute  the  Christian  temper. 

4.  By  all  overt  acts  being  inseparably  connected  with  corresponding 
principles  in  the  heart,  in  order  to  constitute  acceptable  obedience, 
which  principles  suppose  the  regeneration  of  the  soul  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  moral  renovation  is,  therefore,  held  out  as  necessary  to 
our  salvation,  and  promised  as  a  part  of  the  grace  of  our  redemption  by 
Christ. 

5.  By  being  connected  with  promises  of  Divine  assistance,  which  is 
peculiar  to  a  law  connected  with  evangehcal  provisions. 

6.  By  their  having  a  living  illustration  in  the  perfect  and  practical 
example  of  Christ. 

7.  By  the  higher  sanctions  derived  from  the  clearer  revelation  of  a 
future  state,  and  the  more  explicit  promises  of  eternal  life,  and  threat- 
enings  of  eternal  punishment. 

It  follows  from  this,  that  we  have  in  the  Gospel  the  most  complete 
and  perfect  revelation  of  moral  law  ever  given  to  men  ;  and  a  more 
exact  manifestation  of  the  brightness,  perfection,  and  glory  of  that  law, 
under  which  angels  and  our  progenitors  in  paradise  were  placed,  and 
which  it  is  at  once  the  dehght  and  interest  of  the  most  perfect  and 
happy  beings  to  obey. 

It  has,  however,  fared  with  morals  as  with  doctrines,  that  they  have 
been  often,  and  by  a  strange  perversity,  studied,  without  any  reference 
^o  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  As  we  have  had  systems  of  natu-. 
RAL  KELiGioN  drawn  out  of  the  materials  furnished  by  the  Scriptures, 
and  then  placed  to  the  sole  account  of  human  reason  ;  so  we  have  also 
various  systems  of  morals  drawn,  as  far  as  the  authors  thought  fit,  from 
the  same  source,  and  put  forth  under  the  title  of  moral  philosophy, 
implying  too  often,  or,  at  least,  sanctioning  the  inference,  that  the  unas- 
sisted powers  of  man  are  equally  adequate  to  the  discovery  of  doctrine 
and  duty  j  or,  at  best,  that  Christianity  but  perfects  what  uninspired 
men  are  able  not  only  to  commence,  but  to  carry  onward  to  a  con- 
siderable approach  to  perfection.  This  observation  may  be  made  as 
to  both — that  whatever  is  found  correct  in  doctrine,  and  pure  in  moral? 
in  ancient  writers  or  systems,  may  be  traced  to  indirect  revelation  ;  and 
that  so  far  as  mere  reason  has  applied  itself  to  discovery  in  either,  it 
has  generally  gone  astray.  The  modern  systems  of  natural  religion 
and  ethics  are  superior  to  the  ancient,  not  because  the  reason  of  their 
framers  is  superior,  but  because  they  have  had  the  advantage  of  a  light 
from  Christianity,  which  they  have  not  been  candid  enough  generally 
to  acknowledge.  For  those  who  have  written  on  such  subjects  with  a 
view  to  lower  the  value  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  remarks  in  the  first 
part  of  this  work  must  suffice  ;  but  of  that  class  of  moral  philosophers, 
>yho  hold  the  authority  of  the  sacred  books,  and  yet  sedulously  omit  all 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  473 

reference  to  tliem,  it  may  be  inquired  what  they  propose,  by  disjoining 
morals  from  Christianity,  and  considering  them  as  a  separate  science  ? 
Authority  they  cannot  gain,  for  no  obligation  to  duty  can  be  so  high  as 
the  command  of  God  ;  nor  can  that  authority  be  applied  in  so  direct  a 
manner,  as  by  a  revelation  of  his  will :  and  as  for  the  perfection  of  their 
system,  since  they  discover  no  duties  not  already  enjoined  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, or  grounded  upon  some  general  principles  tliey  contain,  they  can 
find  no  apology,  from  the  additions  they  make  to  our  moral  knowledge, 
to  put  Christianity,  on  all  such  subjects,  wholly  out  of  sight. 

All  attemps  to  teach  morals,  independent  of  Christianity,  even  by  those 
who  receive  it  as  a  Divine  revelation,  must,  notwithstanding  the  great 
names  which  have  sanctioned  the  practice,  be  considered  as  of  mis- 
chievous tendency,  although  the  design  may  have  been  laudable,  and  the 
labour,  in  some  subordinate  respects,  not  without  utility : — 

1.  Because  they  silently  convey  the  impression,  that  human  reason, 
without  assistance,  is  sufficient  do  discover  the  full  duty  of  man  toward 
God  and  toward  his  fellow  creatures. 

2.  Because  they  imply  a  deficiency  in  the  moral  code  of  our  religion, 
which  does  not  exist ;  the  fact  being  that,  although  these  systems  bor- 
row much  from  Christianity,  they  do  not  take  in  the  whole  of  its  moral 
principles,  and,  therefore,  so  far  as  they  are  accepted,  as  substitutes, 
displace  what  is  perfect  for  what  is  imperfect. 

3.  Because  they  turn  the  attention  from  what  is  fact,  the  revealed 
LAW  of  God,  with  its  appropriate  sanctions,  and  place  the  obligation  to 
obedience  either  on  fitness,  beauty,  general  interest,  or  the  natural 
authority  of  truth,  which  are  all  matters  of  opinion  ;  or,  if  they  ultimately 
refer  it  to  the  will  of  God,  yet  they  infer  that  will  through  various  rea- 
sonings and  speculations,  which  in  themselves  are  still  matters  of  opinion, 
and  as  to  which  men  will  feel  themsehes  to  be  in  some  degree  free. 

4.  The  duties  they  enjoin  are  either  merely  outward  in  the  act,  and 
so  they  disconnect  them  from  internal  principles  and  habits,  without 
which  they  are  not  acceptable  to  God,  and  but  the  shadows  of  real  vir- 
tue, however  beneficial  they  may  be  to  men  ;  or  else  they  assume  that 
human  nature  is  able  to  engraft  those  principles  and  habits  upon  itself, 
and  to  practise  them  without  abatement  and  interruption ;  a  notion  which  is 
contradicted  by  those  very  Scriptures  they  hold  to  be  of  Divine  authority. 

5.  Their  separation  of  the  doctrines  of  religion  from  its  morals,  leads 
to  an  entirely  different  process  of  promoting  morality  among  men  to 
that  which  the  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  has  estabhshed  in 
the  Gospel.  They  lay  down  the  rule  of  conduct,  and  recommend  it 
from  its  excellence  per  se,  or  its  influence  upon  individuals  and  upon 
society,  or  perhaps  because  it  is  manifested  to  be  the  will  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  mdicatcd  from  the  constitution  of  human  nature,  and  the  rela- 
tions of  men.     But  Christianity  rigidlv  connects  its  doctrines  with  its 

2 


474  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

morals.  Its  doctrine  of  man's  moral  weakness  is  made  use  of  to  lead 
him  to  distrust  his  own  sufficiency.  Its  doctrine  of  the  atonement  shows 
at  once  the  infinite  evil  of  sin,  and  encourages  men  to  seek  dehverance 
from  its  power.  Its  doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  implies  the  entire  destruction  of  the  love  of  evil,  and  the  direction 
of  the  whole  affection  of  the  soul  to  universal  virtue.  Its  doctrine  of 
prayer  opens  to  man  a  fellowship  with  God,  invigorating  to  every  virtue. 
The  example  of  Christ,  the  imitation  of  which  is  made  obhgatory  upon  us, 
is  in  itself  a  moral  system  in  action,  and  in  principle ;  and  the  revelation 
of  a  future  judgment  brings  the  whole  weight  of  the  control  of  future 
rewards  and  punishments  to  bear  upon  the  motives  and  actions  of  men, 
and  is  the  source  of  that  fear  of  offending  God,  which  is  the  constant 
guard  of  virtue,  when  human  motives  would  in  a  multitude  of  cases 
avail  nothing. 

It  may  indeed  be  asked,  whether  the  teaching  of  morals  must  then  in 
all  cases  be  kept  in  connection  with  religion  ?  and  whether  the  philo- 
sophy of  virtues  and  of  vices,  with  the  lower  motives  by  which  they  are 
urged  upon  men,  may  not  be  usefully  investigated  ?  We  answer,  that 
if  the  end  proposed  by  this  is  not  altogether  speculative,  but  something 
practical ;  if  the  case  of  an  immoral  world  is  taken  up  by  moralists  with 
reference  to  its  cure,  or  even  to  its  emendation  in  any  effectual  degree, 
the  whole  is  then  resolved  into  this  simple  question, — whether  a  weaker 
instrument  shall  be  preferred  to  that  which  is  powerful  and  effective  ? 
Certain  it  is  that  the  great  end  of  Christianity,  so  far  as  its  influence 
upon  society  goes,  is  to  moralize  mankind  ;  but  its  infinitely  wise  Author 
has  established  and  authorized  but  one  process  for  the  correction  of  the 
practical  evils  of  the  world,  and  that  is,  the  teaching  and  enforcement 
of  THE  WHOLE  TRUTH  as  it  stands  in  his  own  revelations ;  and  to  this 
only  has  he  promised  his  special  blessing.  A  distinct  class  of  ethical 
teachers,  imitating  heathen  philosophers  in  the  principles  and  modes  of 
moral  tuition,  is,  in  a  Christian  country,  a  violent  anomaly ;  and  implies 
an  absurd  return  to  the  twilight  of  knowledge  after  the  sun  itself  has 
arisen  upon  the  world. 

Within  proper  guards,  and  in  strict  connection  with  the  whole  Chris- 
tian  system,  what  is  called  moral  philosophy  is  not,  however,  to  be  un- 
dervalued ;  and  from  many  of  the  writers  above  alluded  to  much  useful 
instruction  may  be  collected,  which,  though  of  but  little  efficacy  in  itself, 
may  be  invigorated  by  uniting  it  with  the  vital  and  energetic  doctrines 
of  religion,  and  may  thus  become  directive  to  the  conduct  of  the  serious 
Christian.  Understanding  then  by  moral  philosophy,  not  that  pride  of 
science  which  borrows  the  discoveries  of  the  Scriptures,  and  then  ex- 
hibits itself  as  their  rival,  or  affects  to  supply  their  deficiencies ;  but  as 
a  modest  scrutiny  into  the  reasons  on  which  the  moral  precepts  of  reve- 
lation may  be  grounded,  and  a  wise  and  honest  application  of  its  moral 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  475 

principles  to  particular  cases,  it  is  a  branch  of  science  which  may  be 
usefully  cultivated  in  connection  with  Christianity. 

With  respect  to  the  reasons  on  which  moral  precepts  rest,  we  may 
make  a  remark  similar  to  that  offered  in  a  former  part  of  this  work,  on 
the  doctrines  of  revelation.  Some  of  those  doctrines  rest  wholly  on  the 
authority  of  the  Revealer ;  others  are  accompanied  with  a  manifest 
rational  evidence  ;  and  a  third  class  may  partially  disclose  their  rationale 
to  the  patient  and  pious  inquirer.  Yet  the  authority  of  each  class  as  a 
subject  of  faith  is  the  same  ;  it  rests  upon  the  character  of  God  and  his 
relations  to  us  ;  and  that  doctrine  is  equally  binding  which  is  enjoined  on 
our  faith  ^vithout  other  rational  evidence  than  that  which  proves  it  to  be 
a  part  of  a  revelation  from  heaven,  as  that  which  exercises,  and  delights 
our  rational  faculties,  by  a  disclosure  of  the  internal  evidence  of  its 
truth.  When  God  has  permitted  us  to  "  turn  aside"  to  see  some  "  great 
sight"  of  manifested  wisdom,  we  are  to  obey  the  invitation ;  but  still 
we  are  always  to  remember  that  the  authority  of  a  revealed  truth  stands 
on  infinitely  higher  ground  than  our  perception  of  its  reasonableness. 

So  also  as  to  the  moral  precepts  of  the  Bible,  the  rational  evidence  is 
afforded  in  different  degrees,  and  it  is  both  allowable  and  laudable  in  us 
to  investigate  and  collect  it ;  but  still  with  this  caution,  that  the  autho- 
rity of  such  injunctions  is  not  to  be  regulated  by  our  perception  of  their 
reasons,  although  the  reasons,  when  apparent,  may  be  piously  applied 
to  commend  the  authority.  The  discoveries  we  may  make  of  fitness  or 
any  other  quality  in  a  precept  cannot  be  the  highest  reason  of  our  obe- 
dience ;  but  it  may  be  a  reason  for  obeying  with  accelerated  alacrity. 
The  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  would  be  the  same  were  no  obvious  rea- 
sons of  mercy  and  piety  connected  with  it ;  but  the  influence  of  the  pre- 
cept upon  our  interests  and  that  of  the  community  commends  the  precept 
to  our  affections  as  well  as  to  our  sense  of  duty. 

With  respect  to  the  application  of  general  precepts,  that  practical 
wisdom  which  is  the  result  of  large  and  comprehensive  observation  has 
an  important  office.  The  precepts  of  a  universal  revelation  must  neces- 
sarily be,  for  the  most  part,  general,  because  if  rules  had  been  given  for 
each  case  in  detail,  then  truly,  as  St.  John  observes,  "  the  world  could 
not  have  contained  the  books  written."  The  application  of  these  gene- 
ral principles  to  that  variety  of  cases  which  arises  in  human  affairs,  is 
the  work  of  the  Christian  preacher,  and  the  Christian  moralist.  Where 
there  is  honesty  of  mind,  ordinarily  there  can  be  no  difliiculty  in  this ; 
and  in  cases  which  involve  some  difficulty,  when  the  interpretation  of 
the  law  is  made,  as  it  always  ought,  to  favour  the  rule ;  and  when,  in 
doubtful  cases,  the  safer  course  is  adopted,  such  is  the  explicit  character 
of  the  general  principles  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  no  one  can  go 
^stray.  The  moral  philosophy  which  treats  of  exceptions  to  general 
rules,  is  always  to  be  watched  with  jealousy ;  and  ought  to  be  shunned 

2 


476  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

when  it  presumes  to  form  rules  out  of  supposed  exceptions.  This  is 
affecting  to  be  wiser  than  the  Lawgiver ;  and  such  philosophy  assumes 
an  authority  in  the  control  of  human  conduct  to  which  it  has  no  title ; 
and  steps  in  between  individuals  and  their  consciences  in  cases  where 
almighty  God  himself  has  not  chosen  to  relieve  them ;  and  where  they 
are  specially  left,  as  all  sometimes  are,  to  "  Him  with  whom  they  have 
to  do,"  without  the  intervention  of  any  third  party.  Systems  of  casuistry 
and  cases  of  conscience  have  happily  gone  into  general  disuse.  That 
they  have  done  more  harm  upon  the  whole  than  good,  and  defiled  more 
consciences  than  they  have  relieved,  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  one  who 
has  largely  examined  them.  They  have  passed  away  just  in  proportion 
as  the  Scriptures  themselves  have  been  circulated  through  society,  and 
as  that  preaching  has  been  most  prevalent  wliich  enforces  the  doctrine 
of  supreme  love  to  God  and  our  neighbour,  as  the  sum  of  the  law  and 
of  the  Gospel.  They  most  abounded  in  the  Romish  Church,  as  best 
befitting  its  system  of  darkness  and  delusion ;  (7)  and  though  works  of 
this  kind  are  found  among  Protestants  in  a  better  form,  they  have  gra» 
dually  and  happily  fallen  into  neglect. 

A  few  words  may  here  be  offered  on  what  has  been  termed  the  ground 
of  moral  obligation. 

Some  writers  have  placed  this  in  "  the  eternal  and  necessary  fitness 
of  things ;"  which  leaves  the  matter  open  to  the  varying  conclusions 
which  different  individuals  may  draw,  as  to  this  eternal  and  necessary 
fitness ;  and  still  farther,  leaves  that  very  natural  question  quite  unan- 
swered, — Why  is  any  one  obliged  to  act  according  to  the  fitness  of 
things  ? 

Others  have  referred  to  a  supposed  original  perception  of  what  is  right 
and  wrong ;  a  kind  of  fixed  and  permanent  and  unalterable  moral  sense, 
by  which  the  qualities  of  actions  are  at  once  determined ;  and  from  the 
supposed  universal  existence  of  this  perception,  they  have  argued  the 
obligation  to  act  accordingly.  This  scheme,  which  seems  to  confound 
that  in  human  nature  to  which  an  appeal  may  be  made  when  the  under- 
standing is  enlightened  by  real  truth,  with  a  discriminating  and  directive 
principle  acting  independently  of  instruction,  is  also  unsatisfactory.  For 
the  moral  sense  is,  in  fact,  found  under  the  control  of  ignorance  and 
error ;  nor  does  it  possess  a  sensitiveness  in  all  cases  in  proportion  to 
the  truth  received  into  the  understanding.  The  worst  crimes  have  often 
been  committed  with  a  conviction  of  their  being  right,  as  in  the  case  of 
religious  persecutions  ;  and  the  absence  of  the  habit  of  attending  to  the 
quality  of  our  actions  often  renders  the  abstract  truth  laid  up  in  the  un- 
derstanding useless,  as  to  its  influence  upon  the  conscience.  But  if  all 
that  is  said  of  this  moral  sense  were  true,  still  it  >vould  not  establish  the 

(7)  M.  le  Feore,  preceptor  of  Louis  XIII,  not  unaptly  called  casuistry,  "the 
art  of  quibbling  with  God." 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  477 

principle  of  obligation.  That  supposes  superior  autJiorify ;  and  should 
we  allow  the  moral  sense  to  act  uniformly,  still  how  is  the  obligation  to 
perform  what  it  approves  to  be  demonstrated,  unless  some  higher  consi- 
deration  be  added  to  the  case  ? 

More  modern  moralists  have  taken  the  tendency  of  any  course  of 
action  to  produce  the  greatest  good  upon  the  whole  as  the  source  of 
moral  obligation ;  and  with  this  they  often  connect  the  will  of  God,  of 
which  they  consider  this  general  tendency  to  be  the  manifestation.  It 
were  better,  surely,  to  refer  at  once  to  the  will  of  God,  as  revealed  by 
himself  without  incumbering  the  subject  with  the  circuitous,  and,  at  best, 
doubtful  process  of  first  considering  what  is  good  upon  the  whole,  and 
then  inferring  that  this  must  needs  be  the  will  of  a  wise  and  benevolent 
Being.  The  objection,  too,  holds  in  this  case,  that  this  theory  leaves  it 
still  a  mere  matter  of  opinion,  in  which  an  interested  party  is  to  be  the 
judge,  whether  an  action  be  upon  the  whole  good ;  and  gives  a  rule 
which  would  be  with  difficulty  applied  to  some  cases,  and  is  scarcely  at 
all  applicable  to  many  others  which  may  be  supposed. 

The  only  satisfactory  answer  which  the  question  as  to  the  source  of 
moral  obligation,  can  receive,  is,  that  it  is  found  in  the  will  of  God. 
For  since  the  question  respects  the  duty  of  a  created  being  with  refe- 
rence to  his  Creator,  nothing  can  be  more  conclusive  than  that  the  Cre- 
ator  has  an  absolute  right  to  the  obedience  of  his  creatures ;  and  that 
the  creature  is  in  duty  obliged  to  obey  Him  from  whom  it  not  only  has 
received  being,  but  by  whom  that  being  is  constantly  sustained.  It  has 
indeed  been  said,  that  even  if  it  be  admitted,  that  I  am  obliged  to  obey 
the  will  of  God,  the  question  is  still  open,  "  Why  am  I  obliged  to  obey 
his  will  ?"  and  that  this  brings  us  round  to  the  former  answer ;  because 
he  can  only  will  what  is  upon  the  whole  best  for  his  creatures.  But 
this  is  confounding  that  which  may  be,  and  doubtless  is,  a  mle  to  God  in 
the  commands  which  he  issues,  with  that  wliich  really  obliges  the  crca- 
ture.  Now,  that  which  in  truth  obliges  the  creature  is  not  the  nature  of 
the  commands  issued  by  God ;  but  the  relation  in  which  the  creature 
itself  stands  to  God.  If  a  creature  can  have  no  existence,  nor  any  power 
or  faculty  independently  of  God,  it  can  have  no  right  to  employ  its  facul- 
ties  independently  of  him  ;  and  if  it  have  no  right  to  employ  its  faculties 
in  an  independent  manner,  the  right  to  rule  its  conduct  must  rest  with 
the  Creator  alone ;  and  from  this  results  the  obligation  of  the  creature 
to  obey. 

Such  is  the  principle  assumed  in  the  Scriptures,  where  the  creative 
and  rectoral  relations  of  God  are  inseparably  united,  and  the  obligation 
of  obedience  is  made  to  follow  upon  the  fact  of  our  existence ;  and  if 
the  will  of  God,  as  the  source  of  obligation,  be  so  obvious  a  mle,  the 
only  remaining  question  is,  whether  we  shall  receive  that  wdl  as  it  is 
expressly  revealed  by  himself;  or,  wilfully  forgetting  that  such  a  reve- 


478  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

lation  has  been  made,  we  shall  proceed  to  infer  it  by  various  processes 
of  induction  ?  The  answer  to  this  might  have  been  safely  left  to  the 
common  sense  of  mankind,  had  not  the  vanity  of  philosophizing  so  often 
interposed  to  perplex  so  plain  a  point. 

We  must  not  here  confound  the  will  of  God  as  the  source  of  moral 
obligation,  with  the  notion  that  right  and  wrong  have  no  existence  but  as 
they  are  so  constituted  by  the  will  of  God.  They  must  have  their  foun- 
dation in  the  reality  of  things.  What  moral  rectitude  is,  and  why  it 
obliges,  are  quite  distinct  questions.  It  is  to  the  latter  only  that  the 
preceding  observations  apply.  As  to  the  former,  the  following  remarks, 
from  a  recent  intelligent  publication,  are  very  satisfactory  : — 

"  Virtue,  as  it  regards  man,  is  the  conformity  or  harmony  of  his  affec- 
tions and  actions  with  the  various  relations  in  which  he  has  been  placed, 
— of  which  conformity  the  perfect  intellect  of  God,  guided  in  its  exer- 
cise by  his  infinitely  holy  nature,  is  the  only  infallible  judge. 

"  We  sustain  various  relations  to  God  himself.  He  is  our  Creator, — 
our  Preserver, — our  Benefactor, — our  Governor.  *  He  is  the  Framer 
of  our  bodies,  and  the  Father  of  our  spirits.'  He  sustains  us  *  by  the 
word  of  his  power ;'  for,  as  we  are  necessarily  dependent  beings,  our 
continued  existence  is  a  kind  of  prolonged  creation.  We  owe  all  that 
we  possess  to  him ;  and  our  future  blessings  must  flow  from  his  kind- 
ness. Now  there  are  obviously  certain  affections  and  actions  which 
harmonize  or  correspond  with  these  relations.  To  love  and  obey  God 
manifestly  befit  our  relation  to  him,  as  that  great  Being  from  whom  our 
existence  as*  well  as  all  our  comforts  flow.  He  who  showers  his  bless- 
ings upon  us  ought  to  possess  our  affections ;  he  who  formed  us  has  a 
right  to  our  obedience.  It  is  not  stated  merely,  let  it  be  observed,  that 
it  is  impossible  to  contemplate  our  relation  to  God  without  perceiving 
that  we  are  morally  bound  to  love  and  obey  him ;  (though  that  is  a  truth 
of  great  importance  ;)  for  I  do  not  consent  to  the  propriety  of  the  repre- 
sentation, that  virtue  depends  either  upon  our  perceptions  or  our  feelings. 
There  is  a  real  harmony  between  the  relations  in  which  we  stand  to  God, 
and  the  feelings  and  conduct  to  which  reference  has  been  made ;  and 
therefore  the  human  mind  has  been  formed  capable  of  perceiving  and 
feeling  it. 

"  We  sustain  various  relations  to  each  other.  God  has  formed  *  of 
one  blood  all  the  families  of  the  earth.'  Mutual  love  and  brotherly  kind- 
ness, the  fruit  of  love,  are  required  by  this  relation, — they  harmonize  or 
correspond  with  it.  We  are  children ;  we  are  loved,  and  guarded,  and 
supported,  and  tended  with  unwearied  assiduity  by  our  parents.  Filial 
affection  and  filial  obedience  are  demanded  by  this  relation ;  no  other  state 
of  mind,  no  other  conduct,  will  harmonize  with  it.  We  are,  perhaps,  on  the 
other  hand,  parents.  Instrumentally  at  least  we  have  imparted  existence 
to  our  children ;  they  depend  on  us  for  protection,  support,  &c ;  and  to 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  479 

render  that  support,  is  required  by  the  relation  we  bear  to  them.  It  is> 
however,  needless  to  specify  the  various  relations  in  which  we  stand  to 
each  other.  With  reference  to  all  I  again  say,  that  they  necessarily  involve 
obligations  to  certain  states  of  mind,  and  certain  modes  of  conduct,  as 
harmonizing  with  the  relations ;  and  that  rectitude  is  the  conformity  of 
the  character  and  conduct  of  an  individual  with  the  relations  in  which 
he  stands  to  the  beings  by  whom  he  is  surrounded. 

"  It  is  by  no  means  certain  to  me,  that  this  harmony  between  tlie  ac- 
tions and  the  relations  of  a  moral  agent,  is  not  what  we  are  to  under- 
stand by  that  '  conformity  to  the  fitness  of  things,'  in  which  some  writers 
have  made  the  essence  of  virtue  to  consist.  Against  this  doctrine,  it 
has  been  objected,  that  it  is  indefinite,  if  not  absurd ;  because,  as  it  is 
alleged,  it  represents  an  action  as  right  and  fit,  without  stating  what  it 
is  fit  for, — an  absurdity  as  great,  says  the  objector,  as  it  would  be  to  say 
that  '  the  angles  at  the  base  of  an  isosceles  triangle  are  equal  without 
adding  to  one  another,  or  to  any  other  angle.'  Dr.  Brown  also,  in  ar- 
guing against  this  doctrine  says,  '  There  must  be  a  principle  of  moral 
regard,  independent  of  reason,  or  reason  may  in  vain  see  a  thousand 
fitnesses,  and  a  thousand  truths ;  and  would  be  warmed  with  the  same 
lively  emotions  of  mdignation,  against  an  inaccurate  timepiece  or  an 
error  in  arithmetic  calculation,  as  against  the  wretch  who  robbed,  by 
ever).'  fraud  that  could  elude  the  law,  those  who  had  already  little  of 
which  they  could  be  deprived,  that  he  might  riot  a  little  more  luxuriously, 
while  the  helpless,  whom  he  had  plundered,  were  starving  around  him.' 
Now,  why  may  we  not  say,  in  answer  to  the  former  objector,  that  the 
conformity  of  an  action  with  the  relations  of  the  agent,  is  the  fitness  for 
which  Clarke  contends  ?  And  why  may  not  we  reply  to  Dr.  Brown, 
that, — allowing,  as  we  do,  the  necessity  of  that  susceptibility  of  moral 
emotion  for  which  he  contends, — the  emotion  of  approbation  which  arises 
on  the  contemplation  of  a  virtuous  action,  is  not  the  virtue  of  the  action, 
nor  the  perception  of  its  accordance  with  the  relations  of  the  agent,  but 
THE  ACCORDANCE  ITSELF  ?  '  That  a  being,'  says  Dewar,  '  endowed  with 
certain  powers,  is  bound  to  love  and  obey  the  Creator  and  Preserver  of 
all,  is  truth,  whether  I  perceive  it  or  no ;  and  we  cannot  perceive  it  possi- 
ble that  it  can  ever  be  reversed.' 

"  All  the  relations  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  are,  in  one 
sense,  arbitrary.  Our  existence  as  creatures  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
mere  good  pleasure  of  God.  The  relations  which  bind  society  together, 
the  conjugal,  parental,  filial  relation,  depend  entirely  upon  the  sovereign 
will  of  Him  who  gave  us  our  being ;  but  the  conduct  to  which  these 
relations  obhge  us,  is  by  no  means  arbitrary.  Having  determined  to 
constitute  the  relations,  he  could  not  but  enjoin  upon  us  the  conduct 
which  his  word  prescribes.  He  was  under  no  obhgation  to  create  us 
at  all ;  but,  having  given  us  existence,  he  could  not  fail  to  command  us 

2 


480  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  love  and  obey  him.  There  is  a  harmony  between  these  relations, 
and  these  duties, — a  harmony  which  is  not  only  perceived  by  us, — for 
to  state  that  merely,  would  seem  to  make  our  perceptions  the  rule,  if 
not  the  foundation  of  duty, — ^but  which  is  perceived  by  the  perfect  intel- 
lect of  God  himself.  And  since  the  relations  we  sustain  were  constituted 
by  God,  since  he  is  the  Judge  of  the  affections  and  conduct  which  har- 
monize with  these  relations, — that  which  appears  right  to  him,  being 
right  on  that  accou?U, — rectitude  may  be  regarded  as  conformity  to  the 
moral  nature  of  God,  the  ultimate  standard  of  virtue,''^  (Payne^s  Ele. 
ments  of  Mental  and  Moral  Science.) 

To  the  revealed  will  of  God  we  may  now  turn  for  information  on  the 
interesting  subject  of  morals,  and  we  shall  find  that  the  ethics  of  Chris- 
tianity have  a  glory  and  perfection  which  philosophy  has  never  height- 
ened, and  which  its  only  true  office  is  to  display,  and  to  keep  before  the 
attention  of  mankind. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Duties  we  owe  to  (jod. 

The  duties  we  owe  to  God  are  in  Scripture  summed  up  in  the  word 
"godliness,"  the  foundation  of  which,  and  of  duties  of  every  other  kind, 
is  that  entire 

Submission  to  God,  which  springs  from  a  due  sense  of  that  relation 
in  which  we  stand  to  him,  as  creatures. 

We  have  just  seen  that  the  right  of  an  absolute  sovereignty  over  us 
must,  in  the  reason  of  the  case,  exist  exclusively  in  Him  that  made  us ; 
and  it  is  the  perception  and  recognition  of  this,  as  a  practical  habit  of 
the  mind,  which  renders  outward  acts  of  obedience  sincere  and  religious. 
The  will  of  God  is  the  only  rule  to  man,  in  every  thing  on  which  that 
will  has  declared  itself;  and  as  it  lays  its  injunctions  upon  the  heart  as 
well  as  the  life,  the  rule  is  equally  in  force  when  it  directs  our  opinions, 
our  motives,  and  affections,  as  when  it  enjoins  or  prohibits  external  acts. 
We  are  his  because  he  made  us ;  and  to  this  is  added  the  confirmation 
of  this  right  by  our  redemption :  "  Ye  are  not  your  own,  but  bought 
with  a  price ;  wherefore  glorify  God  in  your  bodies  and  spirits  which 
are  his."  These  ideas  of  absolute  right  to  command  on  the  part  of 
God,  and  of  absolute  obligation  to  universal  obedience  on  the  part  of 
man,  are  united  in  the  profession  of  St.  Paul,  "  Whose  I  am  and  whom 
I  serve ;"  and  form  the  grand  fundamental  principle  of  "  godliness"  both 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  the  will  of  God  being  laid  down  in 
each,  both  as  the  highest  reason  and  the  most  powerful  motive  to  obe- 
dience. The  application  of  this  principle  so  established  by  the  Scrip- 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  481 

tures  will  show  how  greatly  superior  is  the  ground  on  which  Christianity 
places  moral  virtue  to  that  of  any  other  system.     For, 

1.  The  will  of  God,  which  is  the  rule  of  duty,  is  authenticated  by  the 
whole  of  that  stupendous  evidence  which  proves  the  Scriptures  to  be  of 
Divine  original. 

2.  That  will  at  once  defines  and  enforces  every  branch  of  inward  and 
outward  purity,  rectitude,  and  benevolence. 

3.  It  annuls  by  its  authority  every  other  rule  of  conduct  contrary  to 
itself,  whether  it  arise  from  custom,  or  from  the  example,  persuasion,  or 
opinions  of  others. 

4.  It  is  a  rule  which  admits  not  of  being  lowered  to  the  weak  and 
fallen  state  of  human  nature  ;  but,  connecting  itself  with  a  gracious  dis- 
pensation of  supernatural  help,  it  directs  the  morally  imbecile  to  that 
remedy,  and  holds  every  one  guilty  of  the  violation  of  all  that  he  is  by 
nature  and  habit  unable  to  perform,  if  that  remedy  be  neglected. 

5.  It  accommodates  not  itself  to  the  interests  or  even  safety  of  men ; 
but  requires  that  interest,  honour,  liberty,  and  life,  should  be  surrendered, 
rather  than  it  should  sustain  any  violation. 

6.  It  admits  no  exceptions  in  obedience ;  but  requires  it  whole  and 
entire ;  so  that  outward  virtue  cannot  be  taken  in  the  place  of  that  which 
has  its  seat  in  the  heart ;  and  it  allows  no  acts  to  be  really  virtuous,  but 
those  which  spring  from  a  willing  and  submissive  mind,  and  are  done 
upon  the  vital  principle  of  a  distinct  recognition  of  our  rightful  subjection 
to  God. 

Love  to  God.  To  serve  and  obey  God  on  the  conviction  that  it  is 
right  to  serve  and  obey  him,  is  in  Christianity  joined  with  that  love  to 
God  which  gives  life  and  animation  to  service,  and  renders  it  the  means 
of  exalting  our  pleasures,  at  the  same  time  that  it  accords  with  our  con- 
victions. The  supreme  love  of  God  is  the  chief,  therefore,  of  what  have 
been  called  our  theopathetic  affections.  It  is  the  sum  and  the  end  of 
law  ;  and  though  lost  by  us  in  Adam,  is  restored  to  us  by  Christ.  When 
it  regards  God  absolutely,  and  in  himself,  as  a  being  of  infinite  and  har- 
monious perfections  and  moral  beauties,  it  is  that  movement  of  the  soul 
toward  him  which  is  produced  by  admiration,  approval,  and  delight. 
When  it  regards  him  relatively,  it  fixes  upon  the  ceaseless  emana- 
tions of  his  goodness  to  us  in  the  continuance  of  the  existence  which  he 
at  first  bestowed ;  the  circumstances  which  render  that  existence  feHci- 
tous ;  and,  above  all,  upon  that  "  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us," 
manifested  in  the  gift  of  his  Son  for  our  redemption,  and  in  saving  us  by 
his  grace  ;  or,  in  the  forcible  language  of  St.  Paul,  upon  "  the  exceeding 
riches  of  his  grace  in  his  kindness  to  us  through  Christ  Jesus."  Under 
all  these  views  an  unbounded  gratitude  overflows  the  heart  which  is  in- 
fluenced by  this  spiritual  affection.  But  the  love  of  God  is  more  than  a 
sentiment  of  gratitude.     It  rejoices  in  his  perfections  and  glories,  and 

Vol.  II.  31 


482  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

devoutly  contemplates  them  as  the  highest  and  most  interesting  subjects 
of  thought ;  it  keeps  the  idea  of  this  supremely  beloved  object  constantly 
present  to  the  mind ;  it  turns  to  it  with  adoring  ardour  from  the  busi- 
ness and  distractions  of  hfe ;  it  connects  it  with  every  scene  of  majesty 
and  beauty  in  nature,  and  with  every  event  of  general  and  particular 
providence ;  it  brings  the  soul  into  fellowship  with  God,  real  and  sensi- 
ble, because  vital ;  it  moulds  the  other  affections  into  conformity  with 
what  God  himself  wills  or  prohibits,  loves  or  hates ;  it  produces  an  un- 
bounded desire  to  please  him,  and  to  be  accepted  of  him  in  all  things ; 
it  is  jealous  of  his  honour,  unwearied  in  his  service,  quick  to  prompt  to 
every  sacrifice  in  the  cause  of  his  truth  and  his  Church  ;  and  it  renders 
all  such  sacrifices,  even  when  carried  to  the  extent  of  suffering  and 
death,  unreluctant  and  cheerful.  It  chooses  God  as  the  chief  good  of 
the  soul,  the  enjoyment  of  which  assures  its  perfect  and  eternal  interest 
and  happiness.  "  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  and  there  is  none 
upon  earth  that  I  desire  beside  thee,"  is  the  language  of  every  heart, 
when  its  love  of  God  is  true  in  principle  and  supreme  in  degree. 

If,  then,  the  will  of  God  is  the  perfect  rule  of  morals  ;  and  if  supreme 
and  perfect  love  to  God  must  produce  a  prompt,  an  unwearied,  a  de- 
lightful subjection  to  his  will,  or  rather,  an  entire  and  most  free  choice 
of  it  as  the  rule  of  all  our  principles,  affections,  and  actions ;  the  im- 
portance of  this  affection  in  securing  that  obedience  to  the  law  of  God 
in  which  true  morality  consists,  is  manifest ;  and  we  clearly  perceive 
the  reason  why  an  inspired  writer  has  affirmed,  that  "  love  is  the  fulfil- 
ling of  the  law."  The  necessity  of  keeping  this  subject  before  us  under 
those  views  in  which  it  is  placed  in  the  Christian  system,  and  of  not 
surrendering  it  to  mere  philosophy,  is,  however,  an  important  considera- 
tion. With  the  philosopher  the  love  of  God  may  be  the  mere  approval 
of  the  intellect ;  or  a  sentiment  which  results  from  the  contemplation 
of  infinite  perfection,  manifesting  itself  in  acts  of  power  and  good- 
ness. In  the  Scriptures  it  is  much  more  than  either,  and  is  pro- 
duced and  maintained  by  a  different  process.  We  are  there  taught 
that  "  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  to  God ;"  and  is  not  of  course  capa- 
ble of  loving  God.  Yet  this  carnal  mind  may  consist  with  deep  at- 
tainments in  philosophy,  and  with  strongly  impassioned  poetic  senti- 
ment. The  mere  approval  of  the  understanding ;  and  the  suscepti- 
bility of  being  impressed  with  feelings  of  admiration,  awe,  and  even 
pleasure,  when  the  character  of  God  is  manifested  in  his  works,  as  both 
may  be  found  in  the  carnal  mind  which  is  enmity  to  God,  are  not  there- 
fore the  love  of  God.  They  are  principles  which  enter  into  that  love, 
since  it  cannot  exist  without  them ;  but  they  may  exist  without  this 
affection  itself,  and  be  found  in  a  vicious  and  unchanged  nature.  The 
love  of  God  is  a  fruit  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  is,  it  is  implanted  by  him 
only  in  the  souls  which  he  has  regenerated ;  and,  as  that  which  excites 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  483 

its  exercise  is  chiefly,  and  in  the  first  place,  a  sense  of  the  benefits  be^ 
stowed  by  the  grace  of  God  in  our  redemption,  and  a  well-grounded 
persuasion  of  our  personal  interest  in  those  benefits,  it  necessarily  pre- 
supposes our  personal  reconciliation  to  God  through  faith  in  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  and  that  attestation  of  it  to  the  heart  by  the  Spirit  of 
adoption  of  which  we  have  before  spoken.  We  here  see,  then,  another 
proof  of  the  necessary  connection  of  Christian  morals  with  Christian 
doctrine,  and  how  imperfect  and  deceptive  every  system  must  be  which 
separates  them.  Love  is  essential  to  true  obedience  ;  for  when  the 
apostle  declares  love  to  be  "  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,"  he  declares,  in 
effect,  that  the  law  cannot  be  fulfilled  without  love ;  and  that  every  ac- 
tion which  has  not  this  for  its  principle,  however  virtuous  in  its  showy 
fails  of  accomplishing  the  precepts  which  are  obligatory  upon  us.  But 
this  love  to  God  cannot  be  felt  so  long  as  we  are  sensible  of  his  wrathy 
and  are  in  dread  of  his  judgments.  These  feelings  are  incompatible 
with  each  other,  and  we  must  be  assured  of  his  reconciliation  to  us, 
before  we  are  capable  of  loving  him.  Thus  the  very  existence  of  the 
love  of  God  implies  the  doctrines  of  the  atonement,  repentance,  faith, 
and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption  to  believers ;  and  unless  it  be  taught 
in  this  connection,  and  through  this  process  of  experience,  it  will  be 
exhibited  only  as  a  bright  and  beauteous  object  to  which  man  has  no 
access ;  or  a  fictitious  and  imitative  sentimentalism  will  be  substituted 
for  it,  to  the  delusion  of  the  souls  of  men. 

A  third  leading  duty  is. 

Trust  in  God.  All  creatures  are  dependent  upon  God  for  bekig 
and  for  well  being.  Inanimate  and  irrational  beings  hold  their  exist- 
ence and  the  benefits  which  may  accompany  it,  independently  of  any 
conditions  to  be  performed  on  their  part.  Rational  creatures  are  placed 
under  another  rule,  and  their  felicity  rests  only  upon  their  obedience. 
Whether,  as  to  those  intelligences  who  have  never  sinned,  specific  ex- 
ercises of  trust  are  required  as  a  duty  comprehended  in  their  general 
obedience,  we  know  not.  But  as  to  men,  the  whole  Scripture  showsy 
that  faith  or  trust  is  a  duty  of  the  first  class,  and  that  they  "stand  only 
by  faith."  Whether  the  reason  of  this  may  be  the  importance  to  them- 
selves of  being  continually  impressed  with  their  dependence  upon  Gody 
so  that  they  may  fly  to  him  at  all  times,  and  escape  the  disappoint- 
ments of  self  confidence,  and  creature  rehances ;  or  that  as  all  good 
actually  comes  from  God,  he  ought  to  be  recognized  as  its  source,  so 
that  all  creatures  may  glorify  him ;  or  whether  other  and  more  secret 
reasons  may  also  be  included ;  the  fact  that  this  duty  is  solemnly  en- 
joined as  an  essential  part  of  true  religion,  cannot  be  doubted.  Nor  can 
the  connection  of  this  habit  of  devoutly  confiding  in  God  with  our  peace 
of  mind  be  overlooked.  We  have  so  many  proofs  of  the  weakness  both- 
of  our  intellectual  and  physical  powers,  and  see  ourselves  so  liable  to  the 

2 


484  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

influence  of  combinations  of  circumstances  which  we  cannot  control, 
and  of  accidents  which  we  cannot  resist,  that,  unless  we  had  assurances 
of  being  guided,  upheld,  and  defended  by  a  Supreme  Power,  we  might 
become,  and  that  not  unreasonably,  a  prey  to  constant  apprehensions, 
and  the  spart  of  the  most  saddening  anticipations  of  the  imagination. 
Our  sole  remedy  from  these  would,  in  fact,  only  be  found  in  insensibility 
and  thoughtlessness ;  for  to  a  reflecting  and  awakened  mind,  nothing 
can  shut  out  uneasy  fears  but  faith  in  God.  In  all  ages  therefore  this 
has  been  the  resource  of  devout  men  :  "  God  is  our  refuge  and  strength, 
a  very  present  help  in  trouble  ;  therefore  will  we  not  fear,"  &c,  Psalm 
xlvi,  1.  "  Our  fathers  trusted  in  thee,  and  thou  didst  deliver  them ;  they 
cried  unto  thee,  and  were  delivered  ;  they  trusted  in  thee  and  were  not 
confounded."  And  from  our  Lord's  sermon  on  the  mount  it  is  clear, 
that  one  end  of  his  teaching  was  to  deliver  men  from  the  piercing 
anxieties  which  the  perplexities  of  this  life  are  apt  to  produce,  by 
encouraging  them  to  confide  in  the  care  and  bounty  of  their  "  heavenly 
Father." 

Our  trust  in  God  is  enjoined  in  as  many  respects  as  he  has  been 
pleased  to  give  us  assurances  of  help,  and  promises  of  favour,  in  his 
own  word.  Beyond  that,  trust  would  be  presumption,  as  not  having 
authority ;  and  to  the  full  extent  in  which  his  gracious  purposes  toward 
us  are  manifested,  it  becomes  a  duty.  And  here  too  the  same  connec- 
tion of  this  duty  with  the  leading  doctrines  of  our  redemption,  which  we 
have  remarked  under  the  last  particular,  also  displays  itself.  If  morals 
be  taught  independent  of  religion,  either  affiance  in  God  must  be 
excluded  from  the  list  of  duties  toward  God,  or  otherwise  it  will  be 
inculcated  without  effect.  A  man  who  is  conscious  of  unremitted  sins, 
and  who  must  therefore  regard  the  administration  of  the  Ruler  of  the 
world,  as  to  him  punitive  and  vengeful,  can  find  no  ground  on  which  to 
rest  his  trust.  All  that  he  can  do  is  to  hope  that  his  relations  to  this 
Being  may  in  future  become  more  favourable ;  but,  for  the  present,  his 
fears  must  prevent  the  exercise  of  his  faith.  What  course  then  lies 
before  him,  but  in  the  first  instance  to  seek  the  restoration  of  the  favour 
of  his  offended  God,  in  that  method  which  he  has  prescribed,  namely, 
by  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  Till  a 
Scriptural  assurance  is  obtained  of  that  change  in  his  relations  to  God 
which  is  effected  by  the  free  and  gracious  act  of  forgiveness,  all  the 
reasons  of  general  trust  in  the  care,  benediction,  and  guidance  of  God, 
are  vain  as  to  him,  because  they  are  not  applicable  to  his  case.  But 
when  friendship  is  restored  between  the  parties,  faith,  however  unli- 
mited, has  the  highest  reason.  It  is  then  "  a  sure  confidence  in  the 
mercy  of  God  through  Christ,"  as  that  mercy  manifests  itself  in  all  the 
promises  which  God  has  been  pleased  to  make  to  his  children,  and  in 
all  those  condescending  relations  with  which  he  has  been  pleased  to 
2 


I 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  485 

invest  himself,  that  under  such  manifestations  he  might  win  and  secure 
our  reliance.  It  is  then  the  confidence  not  merely  of  creatures  in  a 
beneficent  Creator,  or  of  subjects  in  a  gracious  Sovereign,  but  of  chil- 
dren in  a  Parent.  It  respects  the  supply  of  every  want,  temporal  and 
eternal ;  the  wise  and  gracious  ordering  of  our  concerns ;  the  warding 
off,  or  the  mitigation  of  calamities  and  afflictions  ;  our  preservation  from 
all  that  can  upon  the  whole  be  injurious  to  us ;  our  guidance  through 
life  ;  our  hope  in  death  ;  and  our  future  fehcity  in  another  world.  This 
trust  is  a  duty  because  it  is  a  subject  of  command ;  and  also  because, 
afler  such  demonstrations  of  kindness,  distrust  would  imply  a  dishonour- 
able denial  of  the  love  and  faithfulness  of  God,  and  often  also  a  criminal 
dependence  upon  the  creature.  It  is  a  habit  essential  to  piety.  On 
that  condition  we  "  obtain  promises,"  by  making  them  the  subjects  of 
prayer ;  by  its  influence  anxieties  destructive  to  that  calm  contempla- 
tive habit  of  which  true  religion  is  both  the  offspring  and  the  nurse,  are 
expelled  from  the  heart ;  a  spiritual  character  is  thus  given  to  man, 
who  walks  as  seeing  "  Him  who  is  invisible  ;"  and  a  noble  and  cheerful 
courage  is  infused  into  the  soul,  which  elevates  it  above  all  cowardly 
shrinking  from  difficulty,  suffering,  pain,  and  death,  and  affords  a  prac- 
tical exemplification  of  the  exhortation  of  one  who  had  tried  the  value 
of  this  grace  in  a  great  variety  of  exigencies :  "  Wait  upon  the  Lord, 
be  of  good  courage,  and  he  shall  strengthen  thine  heart ;  wait,  I  say, 
upon  the  Lord." 

The  fear  of  God  is  associated  with  love,  and  trust,  in  every  part 
of  Holy  Scripture ;  and  is  enjoined  upon  us  as  another  of  our  leading 
dudes. 

This,  however,  is  not  a  servile  passion ;  for  then  it  could  not  consist 
with  love  to  God,  and  with  delight  and  affiance  in  him.  It  is  true  that 
*'  the  fear  which  hath  torment ;"  that  which  is  accompanied  with  pain- 
ful apprehensions  of  his  displeasure  arising  from  a  just  conviction  of 
our  personal  habiUty  to  it,  is  enjoined  upon  the  careless  and  the  impious. 
To  produce  this,  the  word  of  God  fulminates  in  threatenings,  and  his 
judgments  march  through  the  earth  exhibiting  terrible  examples  of 
vengeance  against  one  nation  or  individual  for  the  admonition  of  others. 
But  that  fear  of  God  which  arises  from  apprehension  of  personal  punish- 
ment, is  not  designed  to  be  the  habit  of  the  mind ;  nor  is  it  included  in 
the  frequent  phrase,  "  the  fear  of  the  Lord,"  when  that  is  used  to  express 
the  whole  of  practical  reUgion,  or  its  leading  principles.  In  that  case 
its  nature  is,  in  part,  expressed  by  the  term  "  reverence,"  which  is  a 
due  and  humbling  sense  of  the  Divine  majesty,  produced  and  maintained 
in  a  mind  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  devout  meditations  upon 
the  perfections  of  his  infinite  nature,  his  eternity  and  omniscience,  his 
constant  presence  with  us  in  every  place,  the  depths  of  his  counsels,  the 
might  of  his  power,  the  holiness,  truth,  and  justice  of  his  moral  cha- 

2 


486  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  fPART 

racter ;  and  on  the  manifestations  of  these  glories  in  the  works  of  that 
mighty  visible  nature  with  which  we  are  surrounded,  in  the  govern, 
ment  of  angels,  devils,  and  men,  and  in  the  revelations  of  his  inspired 
word. 

With  this  deeply  reverential  awe  of  God,  is,  however,  constantly 
joined  in  Scripture,  a  persuasion  of  our  conditional  liability  to  his  dis- 
pleasure. For  since  all  who  have  obtained  his  mercy  and  favour  by 
Christ,  receive  those  blessings  through  an  atonement,  which  itself  de- 
monstrates that  we  are  under  a  righteous  administration,  and  that  neither 
is  the  law  of  God  repealed,  nor  does  his  justice  sleep ;  and  farther, 
since  the  saving  benefits  of  that  atonement  are  conditional,  and  we  our^ 
selves  have  the  power  to  turn  aside  the  benefit  of  its  interposition  from 
us,  or  to  forfeit  it  wlien  once  received,  in  whole  or  in  part,  it  is  clear 
that  while  there  is  a  full  provision  for  our  deliverance  from  the  "  spirit 
of  bondage  unto  fear ;"  there  is  sufficient  reason  why  we  ought  to  be  so 
impressed  with  our  spiritual  dangers,  as  to  produce  in  us  that  caution- 
ary fear  of  the  holiness,  justice,  and  power  of  God,  which  shall  deter  us 
from  offending,  and  lead  us  often  to  view,  with  a  restraining  and  salu- 
tary dread,  those  consequences  of  unfaithfulness  and  disobedience  to 
which,  at  least  while  we  remain  on  earth,  we  are  liable.  Powerful, 
therefore,  as  are  the  reasons  by  which  the  Scriptural  revelation  of  the 
mercy  and  benevolence  of  God  enforces  a  firm  affiance  in  him,  it  ex- 
horts us  not  to  be  "  high-minded,"  but  to  "  fear ;"  to  "  fear"  lest  we 
"  come  short"  of  the  "  promise"  of  entering  "  into  his  rest ;"  to  be  in 
M  the  fear  of  the  Lord  all  the  day  long  ;"  and  to  pass  the  whole  time  of 
our  «  sojourning"  here  "  in  fear." 

This  Scriptural  view  of  the  fear  of  God,  as  combining  both  reverence 
of  the  Divine  majesty,  and  a  suitable  apprehension  of  our  conditional 
liability  to  his  displeasure,  is  of  large  practical  influence. 

It  restrains  our  faith  from  degenerating  into  presumption ;  our  love 
into  familiarity  ;  our  joy  into  carelessness.  It  nurtures  humility,  watch- 
fulness, and  the  spirit  of  prayer.  It  induces  a  reverent  habit  of  thinking 
and  speaking  of  God,  and  gives  solemnity  to  the  exercises  of  devotion. 
It  presents  sin  to  us  under  its  true  aspect,  as  dangerous,  as  well  as  cor- 
rupting to  the  soul ;  as  darkening  our  prospects  in  a  future  life,  as  well 
as  injurious  to  our  peace  in  the  present ;  and  it  gives  strength  and 
efficacy  to  that  most  important  practical  moral  principle,  the  constant 
reference  of  our  inward  habits  of  thought  and  feeling,  and  our  outward 
actions,  to  the  approbation  of  God. 

Upon  these  internal  principles  that  moral  habit  and  state,  which  is 
often  expressed  by  the  term  holiness,  rests.  Separate  from  these  prin- 
ciples, it  can  only  consist  in  visible  acts,  imperfect  in  themselves,  because 
not  vital,  and  however  commended  by  men,  abominable  to  God  who 
trieth  the  heart.  But  when  such  acts  proceed  from  these  sources,  they 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  487 

are  proportioned  to  the  strength  and  purity  of  the  principle  which  ori- 
ginates them,  except  as  in  some  cases  they  may  be  influenced  and 
deteriorated  by  an  uninformed  or  weak  judgment.  An  entire  submission 
to  God ;  a  "  perfect  love"  to  him  ;  firm  affiance  in  his  covenant  engage- 
ments ;  and  that  fear  which  abases  the  spirit  before  God,  and  departs 
even  from  "  the  appearance  of  evil,"  when  joined  with  a  right  under- 
standing of  the  word  of  God,  render  "  the  man  of  God  perfect,"  and 
"  thoroughly  furnish  him  to  every  good  work." 

Beside  these  inward  principles  and  affections,  there  are,  however, 
several  other  habits  and  acts,  a  public  performance  of  which,  as  well  as 
their  more  secret  exercises,  have  been  termed  by  divines  our  EXTERNAii 
DUTIES  toward  God ;  the  term  "  external"  being,  however,  so  used  as 
not  to  exclude  those  exercises  of  the  heart  from  which  they  must  all 
spring  if  acceptable  to  God.     The  first  is, 

Prayer,  which  is  a  solemn  addressing  of  our  minds  to  God,  as  the 
Fountain  of  being  and  happiness,  the  Ruler  of  the  world,  and  the  Fa- 
ther of  the  family  of  man.  It  includes  in  it  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
Divine  perfections  and  sovereignty ;  thankfulness  for  the  mercies  we 
have  received ;  penitential  confession  of  our  sins ;  and  an  earnest  en- 
treaty of  blessings,  both  for  ourselves  and  others.  When  vocal  it  is  an 
external  act,  but  supposes  the  correspondence  of  the  will  and  affection  ; 
yet  it  may  be  purely  mental,  all  the  acts  of  which  it  is  composed  being 
often  conceived  in  the  mind,  when  not  clothed  in  words. 

That  the  practice  of  prayer  is  enjoined  upon  us  in  Scripture,  is  suffi- 
ciently proved  by  a  few  quotations  :  "  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you  ; 
seek,  and  ye  shall  find ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened,"  Matt,  vii,  7. 
"Watch  ye  therefore  and  pray  always,"  Luke  xxi,  36.  "  Be  careful 
for  nothing  ;  but,  in  every  thing  by  prayer  and  supplication  with  thanks- 
giving, let  your  requests  be  made  known  unto  God,"  Phil,  iv,  6.  "  Pray 
without  ceasing,"  1  Thess.  v,  17.  That  prayer  necessarily  includes 
earnestness,  and  that  perseverance  which  is  inspired  by  strong  desire,  is 
evident  from  the  Jews  being  so  severely  reproved  for  "  drawing  near  to 
God  with  their  lips,  while  their  hearts  were  far  from  him  :" — from  the 
general  rule  of  our  Lord  laid  down  in  his  conversation  with  the  woman 
of  Sychar  :  "  God  is  a  Spirit ;  and  they  that  worship  him,  must  worship 
him  in  spirit  and  in  triUh,^^  John  iv,  24, — and,  from  Romans  xii,  12, 
"  Continuing  instant  in  prayer."  Here  the  term,  ^porfxapTSpouvr^j,  is 
very  energetic,  and  denotes,  as  Chrysostom  observes,  "  fervent,  perse- 
vering, and  earnest  prayer."  Our  Lord  also  delivered  a  parable  to 
teach  us  that  we  ought  "  to  pray  and  not  faint ;"  and  we  have  examples 
of  the  success  of  reiterating  our  petitions,  when  for  some  time  they 
appear  disregarded.  One  of  these  is  afforded  in  the  case  of  the  woman 
of  Canaan,  a  first  and  a  second  time  repulsed  by  our  Lord  ;  and  another 
occurs  in  2  Cor.  xii,  8,  9,  "  For  this  I  besought  the  Lord  thrice  that  it 

3 


488  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

might  depart  from  me ;  and  he  said  unto  me,  My  grace  is  sufficient 
for  thee,"  &c.  This  passage  also  affords  an  instance  of  praying  dis- 
tinctly  for  particular  blessings,  a  practice  which  accords  also  with  the 
direction  in  Phil,  iv,  6,  to  make  our  *'  requests  known  unto  God,'* 
which  includes  not  only  our  desires  for  good  generally ;  but  also  those 
particular  requests  which  are  suggested  by  special  circumstances. 
Directions  to  pray  for  national  and  public  blessings  occur  in  Psalm 
cxxii,  6,  "  Pray  for  the  peace  of  Jerusalem,  they  shall  prosper  that  love 
thee :"  in  Zech.  x,  1,  "  Ask  ye  of  the  Lord  rain  in  the  time  of  the  latter 
rain ;  so  the  L^ord  shall  make  bright  clouds,"  (or  lightnings,)  "  and  give 
them  showers  of  rain,  to  every  one  grass  in  the  field :"  in  1  Tim.  ii, 
1-3,  "  I  exhort  therefore  that,  first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers,  inter- 
cessions, and  giving  of  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men ;  for  kings,  and  for 
all  that  are  in  authority,  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  hfe  in 
all  godliness  and  honesty  ;  for  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight 
of  God  our  Saviour,"  &c.  More  particular  intercession  for  others  is 
also  authorized  and  enjoined  :  "  Peter  was  therefore  kept  in  prison  ;  but 
prayer  was  made  without  ceasing  of  the  Church  unto  God  for  him," 
Acts  xii,  5.  "  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  for  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ's 
sake,  and  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive  together  with  me  in 
your  prayers  to  God  for  me ;  that  I  may  be  dehvered  from  them  that 
do  not  believe  in  Judea,"  &;c,  Rom.  xv,  30.  "  Confess  your  faults 
one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be  healed," 
James  v,  16. 

It  follows,  therefore,  from  these  Scriptural  passages,  that  prayer  is  a 
duty ;  that  it  is  made  a  condition  of  our  receiving  good  at  the  hand  of 
God  ;  that  every  case  of  personal  pressure,  or  need,  may  be  made  the 
subject  of  prayer ;  that  we  are  to  intercede  for  all  immediately  con- 
nected with  us,  for  the  Church,  for  our  country,  and  for  all  mankind ; 
that  both  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings  may  be  the  subject  of  our 
supplications ;  and  that  these  great  and  solemn  exercises  are  to  be 
accompanied  with  grateful  thanksgivings  to  God  as  the  author  of  all 
blessings  already  bestowed,  and  the  benevolent  object  of  our  hope  as  to 
future  interpositions  and  supplies.  Prayer,  in  its  particular  Christian 
view,  is  briefly  and  well  defined  in  the  Westminster  Catechism, — "  Prayer 
is  the  offering  of  our  desires  to  God  for  things  agreeable  to  his  will,  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  with  confession  of  our  sins,  and  a  thankful  acknow» 
ledgment  of  his  mercies." 

The  REASON  on  which  this  great  and  efficacious  duty  rests  has  been 

a  subject  of  some  debate.     On  this  point,  however,  we  have  nothing 

explicitly  stated  in  the  Scriptures.    From  them  we  learn  only,  that  God 

has  appointed  it ;  that  he  enjoins  it  to  be  offered  in  faith,  that  is,  faith  in 

Christ,  whose  atonement  is  the  meritorious  and  procuring  cause  of  all 

the  blessings  to  which  our  desires  can  be  directed ;  and  that  prayer  so 
o 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  489 

offered  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  our  obtaining  the  blessings  for 
which  we  ask.  As  a  matter  of  inference,  however,  we  may  discover 
some  gUmpses  of  the  reason  in  the  Divine  mind  on  which  its  appoint- 
ment rests.  That  reason  has  sometimes  been  said  to  be  the  moral  pre- 
paration and  state  of  fitness  produced  in  the  soul  for  the  reception  of  tho 
Divine  mercies  which  the  act,  and,  more  especially,  the  habit  of  prayer, 
must  induce.  Against  this  stands  the  strong  and,  in  a  Scriptural  view, 
the  fatal  objection,  that  an  efficiency  is  thus  ascribed  to  the  mere  act  of 
a  creature  to  produce  those  great,  and  in  many  respects,  radical  changes 
in  the  character  of  man,  which  we  are  taught,  by  inspired  authority,  to 
refer  to  the  direct  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  What  is  it  that  fits 
man  for  forgiveness,  but  simply  repentance  ?  Yet  that  is  expressly  said 
to  be  the  "  gifC^  of  Christ,  and  supposes  strong  operations  of  the  illu- 
minating and  convincing  Spirit  of  truth,  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  spi- 
ritual life;  and  if  the  mere  acts  and  habit  of  prayer  had  efficiency 
enough  to  produce  a  Scriptural  repentance,  then  every  formahst,  attend, 
ing  with  ordinary  seriousness  to  his  devotions,  must,  in  consequence, 
become  a  penitent.  Again,  if  we  pray  for  spiritual  blessings  aright, 
that  is,  with  an  earnestness  of  desire  which  arises  from  a  due  apprehen- 
sion of  their  importance,  and  a  preference  of  them  to  all  earthly  good, 
who  does  not  see  that  this  implies  such  a  deliverance  from  the  earthly 
and  carnal  disposition  which  characterizes  our  degenerate  nature,  that 
an  agency  far  above  our  own,  however  we  may  employ  it,  must  be 
supposed ;  or  else,  if  our  own  prayers  could  be  efficient  up  to  this 
point,  we  might,  by  the  continual  application  of  this  instrument,  com- 
plete our  regeneration,  independent  of  that  grace  of  God,  which,  after 
all,  this  theory  brings  in.  It  may  indeed  be  said  that  the  grace  of  God 
operates  by  our  prayers  to  produce  in  us  a  state  of  moral  fitness  to 
receive  the  blessings  we  ask.  But  this  gives  up  the  point  contended  for, 
the  moral  efficiency  of  prayer ;  and  refers  the  efficiency  to  another 
agent  working  by  our  prayers  as  an  instrument.  Still,  however,  it  may 
be  affirmed,  that  the  Scriptures  nowhere  represent  prayer  as  an  instru- 
ment for  improving  our  moral  state,  though  in  the  hands  of  Divine 
grace,  in  any  other  way  than  as  the  means  of  bringing  into  the  soul  new 
supplies  of  spiritual  life  and  strength.  It  is  therefore  more  properly  to  be 
considered  as  a  condition  of  our  obtaining  that  grace  by  which  such  effects 
are  wrought,  than  as  the  instrument  by  which  it  effects  them.  In  fact, 
all  genuine  acts  of  prayer  depend  upon  a  grace  previously  bestowed, 
and  from  which  alone  the  disposition  and  the  power  to  pray  proceed. 
So  it  was  said  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  "  Behold  he  prayeth  !"  He  prayed  in 
fact  then  for  the  first  time  ;  but  that  was  in  consequence  of  the  illumi- 
nation of  his  mind  as  to  his  spiritual  danger  effected  by  the  miracle  on 
the  way  to  Damascus,  and  the  grace  of  God  which  accompanied  the 
ttiiracle.     Nor  does  the  miraculous  character  of  the  means  by  which 


490  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

conviction  was  produced  in  his  mind,  affect  the  relevancy  of  this  to 
ordinary  cases.  By  whatever  means  God  may  be  pleased  to  fasten  the 
conviction  of  our  spiritual  danger  upon  our  minds,  and  to  awaken  us  out 
of  the  long  sleep  of  sin,  that  conviction  must  precede  real  prayer,  and 
comes  from  the  influence  of  his  grace,  rendering  the  means  of  convic- 
tion effectual.  Thus  it  is  not  the  prayer  which  produces  the  conviction, 
but  the  conviction  which  gives  birth  to  the  prayer ;  and  if  we  pursue 
the  matter  into  its  subsequent  stages,  we  shall  come  to  the  same  result. 
We  pray  for  what  we  feel  we  want ;  that  is,  for  something  not  in  our 
possession  ;  we  obtain  this  either  by  impartation  from  God,  to  whom  we 
look  up  as  the  only  Being  able  to  bestow  the  good  for  which  we  ask 
him ;  or  else  we  obtain  it,  according  to  this  theory,  by  some  moral 
efficiency  being  given  to  the  exercise  of  praying  to  work  it  irt  us.  Now, 
the  latter  hypothesis  is  in  many  cases  manifestly  absurd.  We  ask  for 
pardon  of  sin,  for  instance  ;  but  that  is  an  act  of  God  done  for  us,  quite 
distinct  from  any  moral  change  which  prayer  may  be  said  to  produce  in 
us,  whatever  efficiency  we  may  ascribe  to  it ;  for  no  such  change  in  us 
can  be  pardon,  since  that  must  proceed  from  the  party  offended.  We- 
ask  for  increase  of  spiritual  strength ;  and  prayer  is  the  expression  of 
that  want.  But  if  it  supply  this  want  by  its  own  moral  efficiency,  it 
must  supply  it  in  proportion  to  its  intensity  and  earnestness ;  which  inten- 
sity and  earnestness  can  only  be  called  forth  by  the  degree  in  which  the 
want  is  felt,  so  that  the  case  supposed  is  contradictory  and  absurd,  as  it 
makes  the  sense  of  want  to  be  in  proportion  to  the  supply  which  ought 
to  abate  or  remove  it.  And  if  it  be  urged,  that  prayer  at  least  produces 
in  us  a  fitness  for  the  supply  of  spiritual  strength,  because  it  is  excited 
by  a  sense  of  our  wants,  the  answer  is,  that  the  fitness  contended  for 
consists  in  that  sense  of  want  itself,  which  must  be  produced  in  us  by 
the  'previous  agency  of  grace,  or  we  should  never  pray  for  supplies. 
There  is,  in  fact,  nothing  in  prayer  simply  which  appears  to  have  any 
a.daptation,  as  an  instrument,  to  effect  a  moral  change  in  man,  although 
it  should  be  supposed  to  be  made  use  of  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  word  of  God  is  properly  an  instrument,  because  it  contains 
the  doctrine  which  that  Spirit  explains  and  applies,  and  the  motives  to 
faith  and  obedience  which  he  enforces  upon  the  conscience  and  affec- 
tions ;  and  though  prayer  brings  these  truths  and  motives  before  us, 
prayer  cannot  properly  be  said  to  be  an  instrument  of  our  regeneration, 
because  that  which  is  thus  brought  by  prayer  to  bear  upon  our  case  is 
the  word  of  God  itself  introduced  into  our  prayers,  which  derive  their 
sole  influence  in  that  respect  from  that  circumstance.  Prayer  simply  is 
the  application  of  an  insufficient  to  a  sufficient  Being  for  the  good  which 
the  former  cannot  otherwise  obtain,  and  which  the  latter  only  can  sup- 
ply ;  and  as  that  supply  is  dependent  upon  prayer,  and  in  the  nature  of 
the  thing  consequent,  prayer  can  in  no  good  sense  be  said  to  be  the 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  491 

instrument  of  supplying  our  wants,  or  fitting  us  for  their  supply,  except 
relatively,  as  a  mere  condition  appointed  by  the  donor. 

If  we  must  inquire  into  the  reason  of  the  appointment  of  prayer,  and 
it  can  scarcely  be  considered  as  a  purely  arbitrary  institution,  that  rea- 
son seems  to  be,  the  preservation  in  the  minds  of  men  of  a  solemn  and 
impressive  sense  of  God's  agency  in  the  world,  and  the  dependence  of 
all  creatures  upon  him.  Perfectly  pure  and  glorified  beings,  no  longer 
in  a  state  of  probation,  and  therefore  exposed  to  no  temptations,  may  not 
need  this  institution ;  but  men  in  their  fallen  state  are  constantly  prone 
to  forget  God ;  to  rest  in  the  agency  of  second  causes  ;  and  to  build  upon 
a  suflEiciency  in  themselves.  This  is  at  once  a  denial  to  God  of  the 
glory  which  he  rightly  claims,  and  a  destructive  delusion  to  creatures, 
who,  in  forsaking  God  as  the  object  of  their  constant  affiance,  trust  but 
in  broken  reeds,  and  attempt  to  drink  from  "  broken  cisterns  which  can 
hold  no  water."  It  is  then  equally  in  mercy  to  us,  as  in  respect  to 
his  own  honour  and  acknowledgment,  that  the  Divine  Being  has  sus- 
pended so  many  of  his  blessings,  and  those  of  the  highest  necessity  to 
us,  upon  the  exercise  of  prayer  ;  an  act  which  acknowledges  his  uncon- 
trollable  agency,  and  the  dependence  of  all  creatures  upon  him ;  our 
insufficiency,  and  his  fulness ;  and  lays  the  foundation  of  that  habit  of 
gratitude  and  thanksgiving,  which  is  at  once  so  amehorating  to  our  own 
feelings,  and  so  conducive  to  a  cheerful  obedience  to  the  will  of  God. 
And  if  this  reason  for  the  injunction  of  prayer  is  nowhere  in  Scripture 
stated  in  so  many  words,  it  is  a  principle  uniformly  supposed  as  the 
foundation  of  the  whole  scheme  of  religion  which  they  have  revealed. 

To  this  duty  objections  have  been  sometimes  offered,  at  which  it  may 
be  well  at  least  to  glance. 

One  has  been  grounded  upon  a  supposed  predestination  of  all  things 
which  come  to  pass ;  and  the  argument  is,  that  as  this  estabUshed  pre- 
determination of  all  things  cannot  be  altered,  prayer,  which  supposes 
that  God  will  depart  from  it,  is  vain  and  useless.  The  answer  which  a 
pious  predestinarian  would  give  to  this  objection  is.  That  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  predestination  of  God  lies  with  the  same  force  against 
every  other  human  efl!brt,  as  against  prayer ;  and  that  as  God's  prede- 
termination  to  give  food  to  man  does  not  render  the  cultivation  of  the 
earth  useless  and  impertinent,  so  neither  does  the  predestination  of  things 
shut  out  the  necessity  and  efficacy  of  prayer.  It  would  also  be  urged, 
that  God  has  ordained  the  means  as  well  as  the  end ;  and  although  he 
is  an  unchangeable  Being,  it  is  a  part  of  the  unchangeable  system  which 
he  has  established,  that  prayer  shall  be  heard  and  accepted. 

Those  who  have  not  these  views  of  predestination  will  answer  the 
objection  differently ;  for  if  the  premises  of  such  a  predestination  as  is 
assumed  by  the  objection,  and  conceded  in  the  answer,  be  allowed,  the 
answer  is  unsatisfactory.     The  Scriptures  represent  God,  for  instance, 

2 


492  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

as  purposing  to  inflict  a  judgment  upon  an  individual  or  a  nation,  which 
purpose  is  often  changed  by  prayer.  In  this  case  either  God's  purpose 
must  be  denied,  and  then  his  threatenings  are  reduced  to  words  without 
meaning ;  or  the  purpose  must  be  allowed,  in  which  case  either  prayer 
breaks  in  upon  predestination,  if  understood  absolutely,  or  it  is  vain  and 
useless.  To  the  objection  so  drawn  out  it  is  clear  that  no  answer  is 
given  by  saying  that  the  means  as  well  as  the  end  are  predestinated, 
since  prayer  in  such  cases  is  not  a  means  to  the  end,  but  an  instrument 
of  thwarting  it ;  or  is  a  means  to  one  end  in  opposition  to  another  end, 
which,  if  equally  predestinated  with  the  same  absoluteness,  is  a  con- 
tradiction. 

The  true  answer  is,  that  although  God  has  absolutely  predetermined 
some  things,  there  are  others,  which  respect  his  government  of  free  and 
accountable  agents,  which  he  has  but  conditionally  predetermined. — 
The  true  immutability  of  God  we  have  already  showed,  (part  ii,  chap. 
28,)  consists,  not  in  his  adherence  to  his  purposes,  but  in  his  never 
changing  the  principles  of  his  administration ;  and  he  may  therefore  in 
perfect  accordance  with  his  preordination  of  things,  and  the  immutabi- 
lity of  his  nature,  purpose  to  do,  under  certain  conditions  dependent 
upon  the  free  agency  of  man,  what  he  will  not  do  under  others  ;  and 
for  this  reason,  that  an  immutable  adherence  to  the  principles  of  a  wise, 
just,  and  gracious  government,  requires  it.  Prayer  is  in  Scripture  made 
one  of  these  conditions  ;  and  if  God  has  established  it  as  one  of  the 
principles  of  his  moral  government  to  accept  prayer,  in  every  case  in 
which  he  has  given  us  authority  to  ask,  he  has  not,  we  may  be  as- 
sured,  entangled  his  actual  government  of  the  world  with  the  bonds  of 
such  an  eternal  predestination  of  particular  events,  as  either  to  reduce 
prayer  to  a  mere  form  of  words,  or  not  to  be  able  himself,  consistently 
with  his  decrees,  to  answer  it,  whenever  it  is  encouraged  by  his  express 
engagements. 

A  second  objection  is,  that  as  God  is  infinitely  wise  and  good,  his 
wisdom  and  justice  will  lead  him  to  bestow  "  whatever  is  fit  for  us 
without  praying ;  and  if  any  thing  be  not  fit  for  us,  we  cannot  obtain  it 
by  praying."  To  this  Dr.  Paley  very  well  replies,  {Moral  Philosophy,) 
"  That  it  may  be  agreeable  to  perfect  wisdom  to  grant  that  to  our  pray- 
ers which  it  would  not  have  been  agreeable  to  the  same  wisdom  to 
have  given  us  without  praying  for."  This,  independent  of  the  ques- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  which  explicitly  enjoin  prayer,  is 
the  best  answer  which  can  be  given  to  the  objection ;  and  it  is  no  small 
confirmation  of  it,  that  it  is  obvious  to  every  reflecting  man,  that  for 
God  to  withhold  favours  till  asked  for,  "tends,"  as  the  same  writer 
observes,  "  to  encourage  devotion  among  his  rational  creatures,  and 
to  keep  up  and  circulate  a  knowledge  and  sense  of  their  dependency 

upon  HIM." 

2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  493 

But  it  is  urged,  "  God  will  always  do  what  is  best  from  the  moral 
perfection  of  his  nature,  whether  we  pray  or  not."  This  objection, 
however,  supposes,  that  there  is  but  one  mode  of  acting  for  the  best, 
and  that  the  Divine  will  is  necessarily  determined  to  that  mode  only  ; 
"  both  which  positions,"  says  Paley,  "  presume  a  knowledge  of  univer- 
sal nature,  much  beyond  what  we  are  capable  of  attaining."  It  is, 
indeed,  a  very  unsatisfactory  mode  of  speaking,  to  say,  God  will  always 
do  what  is  best ;  since  we  can  conceive  him  capable  in  all  cases  of 
doing  what  is  still  better  for  the  creature,  and  also  that  the  creature  is 
capable  of  receiving  more  and  more  from  his  infinite  fulness  for  ever. 
All  that  can  be  rationally  meant  by  such  a  phrase  is,  that  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  God  will  always  do  what  is  most  consistent  with  his 
own  wisdom,  holiness,  and  goodness  ;  but  then  the  disposition  to  pray, 
and  the  act  of  praying,  add  a  new  circumstance  to  every  case,  and 
often  bring  many  other  new  circumstances  along  with  them.  It  sup- 
poses humility,  contrition,  and  trust,  on  the  part  of  the  creature  ;  and  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  power  and  compassion  of  God,  and  of  the  merit 
of  the  atonement  of  Christ :  all  which  are  manifestly  new  positions,  so 
to  speak,  of  the  circumstances  of  the  creature,  which,  upon  the  very 
principle  of  the  objection,  rationally  understood,  must  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

But  if  the  efficacy  of  prayer  as  to  ourselves  be  granted,  its  influence 
upon  the  case  of  others  is  said  to  be  more  difficult  to  conceive.  This 
may  be  allowed  without  at  all  affecting  the  duty.  Those  who  bow  to 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  will  see,  that  the  duty  of  praying  for 
ourselves  and  for  others  rests  upon  the  same  Divine  appointment ;  and 
to  those  who  ask  for  the  reason  of  such  intercession  in  behalf  of  others, 
it  is  sufficient  to  reply,  that  the  efficacy  of  prayer  being  established  in 
one  case,  there  is  the  same  reason  to  conclude  that  our  prayers  may 
benefit  others,  as  any  other  effort  we  may  use.  It  can  only  be  by 
Divine  appointment  that  one  creature  is  made  dependent  upon  another 
for  any  advantage,  since  it  was  doubtless  in  the  power  of  the  Creator  to 
have  rendered  each  independent  of  all  but  himself.  Whatever,  reason, 
therefore,  might  lead  him  to  connect  and  interweave  interests  of  the 
one  man  with  the  benevolence  of  another,  will  be  the  leading  reason  for 
that  kind  of  mutual  dependence  which  is  imphed  in  the  benefit  of  mutual 
prayer.  Were  it  only  that  a  previous  sympathy,  charity,  and  good' 
will,  are  implied  in  the  duty,  and  must,  indeed,  be  cultivated  in  order 
to  it,  and  be  strengthened  by  it,  the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of  the 
institution  would,  it  is  presumed,  be  apparent  to  every  well  constituted 
mind.  That  all  prayer  for  others  must  proceed  upon  a  less  perfect 
knowledge  of  them  than  we  have  of  ourselves,  is  certain ;  that  ail  our 
petitions  must  be,  even  in  our  own  mind,  more  conditional  than  those 
which  respect  ourselves,  though  many  of  these  must  be  subjected  to  the 


494  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

principles  of  a  general  administration,  which  we  but  partially  appre- 
hend ;  and  that  all  spiritual  influences  upon  others,  when  they  are  the 
subject  of  our  prayers,  will  be  understood  by  us  as  liable  to  the  control  of 
their  free  agency,  must  also  be  conceded ;  and,  therefore,  when  others  are 
concerned,  our  prayers  may  often  be  partially  or  wholly  fruitless.  He 
who  believes  the  Scriptures  will,  however,  be  encouraged  by  the  decla- 
ration, that  "  the  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man,"  for  his  fel- 
low creatures,  "  availeth  much ;"  and  he  who  demands  something  beyond 
mere  authoritative  declaration,  as  he  camiot  deny  that  prayer  is  one  of 
those  instruments  by  which  another  may  be  benefited,  must  acknow- 
ledge that,  like  the  giving  of  counsel,  it  may  be  of  great  utihty  in  some 
cases,  although  it  should  fail  in  others ;  and  that  as  no  man  can  tell  how 
much  good  counsel  may  influence  another,  or  in  many  cases  say  whe- 
ther it  has  ultimately  failed  or  not,  so  it  is  with  prayer.  It  is  a  part  of 
the  Divine  plan,  as  revealed  in  his  word,  to  give  many  blessings  to  man 
independent  of  his  own  prayers,  leaving  the  subsequent  improvement  of 
them  to  himself.  They  are  given  in  honour  of  the  intercession  of 
Christ,  man's  great  "Advocate;"  and  they  are  given,  subordinately,  in 
acceptance  of  the  prayers  of  Christ's  Church,  and  of  righteous  individu- 
als. And  when  many,  or  few,  devout  individuals  become  thus  the 
instruments  of  good  to  communities,  or  to  whole  nations,  there  is  no 
greater  mystery  in  this  than  in  the  obvious  fact,  that  the  happiness  or 
misery  of  large  masses  of  mankind  is  often  greatly  affected  by  the 
wisdom  or  the  errors,  the  skill  or  the  incompetence,  the  good  or  the  bad 
conduct  of  a  few  persons,  and  often  of  one. 

The  general  duty  of  prayer  is  usually  distributed  into  four  branches, 
— Ejaculatort/f  privatey  social,  and  public  ;  each  of  wJiich  is  of  such 
importance  as  to  require  a  separate  consideration. 

Ejaculatory  prayer  is  the  term  given  to  those  secret  and  frequent 
aspirations  of  the  heart  to  God  for  general  or  particular  blessings,  by 
which  a  just  sense  of  our  habitual  dependence  upon  God,  and  of  our 
wants  and  dangers,  may  be  expressed,  at  those  intervals  when  the 
thoughts  call  detach  themselves  from  the  affairs  of  life,  though  but  for 
a  moment,  while  we  are  still  employed  in  them.  It  includes,  too,  all 
those  short  and  occasional  effusions  of  gratitude,  and  silent  ascriptions 
of  praise,  which  the  remembrance  of  God's  mercies  will  excite  in  a  de- 
votional spirit,  under  the  same  circumstances.  Both,  however,  presup- 
pose what  divines  have  called,  "  the  spirit  of  prayer,"  which  springs 
from  a  sense  of  our  dependence  upon  God,  and  is  a  breathing  of  the 
desires  afler  intercourse  of  thought  and  affection  with  him,  accompanied 
with  a  reverential  and  encouraging  sense  of  his  constant  presence  with 
us.  The  cultivation  of  this  spirit  is  clearly  enjoined  upon  us  as  a  duty 
by  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  exhorts  us  to  "  pray  without  ceasing,  and  in 
every  thing  give  thanks ;"  and  also  to  "  set  our  affections  upon  things 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  495 

above  ;" — exhortations  which  imply  a  holy  and  devotional  frame  and 
temper  of  mind,  and  not  merely  acts  of  prayer  performed  at  intervals. 
The  high  and  unspeakable  advantages  of  this  habit,  are,  that  it  induces 
a  watchful  and  guarded  mind  ;  prevents  religion  from  deteriorating  into 
form  without  hfe ;  unites  the  soul  to  God,  its  light  and  strength  ;  in- 
duces continual  supplies  of  Diyine  influence ;  and  opposes  an  effectual 
barrier,  by  the  grace  thus  acquired,  against  the  encroachments  of 
worldly  anxieties,  and  the  force  of  temptations.  The  existence  of  this 
spirit  of  prayer  and  thanksgiving  is  one  of  the  grand  distinctions 
between  nominal  and  real  Christians ;  and  by  it  the  measure  of  vital 
and  effective  Christianity  enjoyed  by  any  individual  may  orduiarily  be 
determined. 

Private  prayer.  This,  as  a  duty,  rests  upon  the  examples  of  good 
men  in  Scripture  ;  upon  several  passages  of  an  injunctive  character  in 
the  Old  Testament ;  and,  in  the  New,  upon  the  express  words  of  our 
Lord,  which,  while  they  suppose  the  practice  of  individual  prayer  to 
have  been  generally  acknowledged  as  obligatory,  enjoin  that  it  should 
be  strictly  private.  "  But  thou,  when  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy 
closet,  (8)  and  when  thou  hast  shut  the  door,  pray  to  thy  Father 
which  is  in  secret,  and  thy  Father  which  seeth  in  secret  shall  reward 
thee  openly."  In  this  respect,  also,  Christ  has  himself  placed  us 
under  the  obhgation  of  his  own  example  ;  the  evangelists  having  been 
inspired  to  put  on  record  several  instances  of  his  retirement  into  abso- 
lute privacy  that  he  might  "  pray."  The  reason  for  this  institution  of 
private  devotion  appears  to  have  been  to  incite  us  to  a  friendly  and 
confiding  intercourse  with  God  in  all  those  particular  cases  which  most 
concern  our  feelings  and  our  interests  ;  and  it  is  a  most  affecting 
instance  of  the  condescension  and  sympathy  of  God,  that  we  are  thus 
allowed  to  use  a  freedom  with  him,  in  "  pouring  out  our  hearts,"  which 
we  could  not  do  with  our  best  and  dearest  friends.  It  is  also  most 
worthy  of  our  notice,  that  when  this  duty  is  enjoined  upon  us  by  our 
Lord,  he  presents  the  Divine  Being  before  us  under  a  relation  most  of 
all  adapted  to  inspire  that  unlimited  confidence  with  which  he  would 
have  us  to  approach  him : — "  Pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret." 
Thus  is  the  dread  of  his  omniscience,  indicated  by  his  "  seeing  in  se- 
cret," and  of  those  other  overwhelming  attributes  which  omnipresence 
and  omniscience  cannot  fail  to  suggest,  mitigated,  or  only  employed  to 
inspire  greater  freedom,  and  a  stronger  affiance. 

Family  prayer.  Paley  states  the  peculiar  use  of  feimily  prayer  to 
consist  in  its  influence  upon  servants  and  children,  whose  attention  may 
be  more  easily  commanded  by  this  than  by  pubHc  worship.      "The 

(8)  Eij  TO  rajiuiov.  Kuinoel  observes,  that  the  word  "  answers  to  the  He- 
brew r\'hy,  an  upper  room  set  apart  for  retirement  and  prayer,  among  the 
orientals." 

2 


496  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

example  and  authority  of  a  master  and  father  act,  also,  in  this  way 
with  greater  force ;  and  the  ardour  of  devotion  is  better  supported,  and 
the  sympathy  more  easily  propagated  through  a  small  assembly,  con. 
nected  by  the  affections  of  domestic  society,  than  in  the  presence  of  a 
mixed  congregation."  There  is,  doubtless,  weight  in  these  remarks  ; 
but  they  are  defective,  both  in  not  stating  the  obligation  of  this  impor- 
tant duty,  and  in  not  fully  exhibiting  its  advantages. 

The  absence  of  an  express  precept  for  family  worship  has,  it  is 
true,  been  urged  against  its  obligation  even  by  some  who  have  still  con- 
sidered  it  as  a  prudential  and  useful  ordinance.  But  the  strict  obliga- 
tion of  so  important  a  duty  is  not  to  be  conceded  for  a  moment,  since  it 
so  plainly  arises  out  of  the  veiy  constitution  of  a  family ;  and  is  con- 
firmed by  the  earliest  examples  of  the  Church  of  God.  On  the  first  of 
these  points  the  following  observations,  from  a  very  able  and  interesting 
work,  (Anderson  on  the  Domestic  Constitution,)  are  of  great  weight : — 

"  The  disposition  of  some  men,  professing  Christianity,  to  ask  peremp- 
torily for  a  particular  precept  in  all  cases  of  incumbent  moral  duty,  is 
one  which  every  Christian  would  do  well  to  examine ;  not  only  that  he 
may  never  be  troubled  with  it  himself,  but  that  he  may  be  at  no  loss  in 
answering  such  a  man,  if  he  is  called  to  converse  with  him.  The  par- 
ticular duty  to  which  he  refers, — say,  for  example,  family  worship, — is 
comparatively  of  small  account.  His  question  itself  is  indicative  not 
merely  of  great  ignorance  ;  it  is  symptomatic  of  the  want  of  religious 
principle.  When  a  man  says  that  he  can  only  be  bound  to  such  a  duty,  a 
moral  duty,  by  a  positive  and  particular  precept,  I  am  satisfied  that  ke 
could  not  perform  it,  in  obedience  to  any  precept  whatever  ;  nor  could 
he  even  now,  though  he  were  to  try.  The  truth  is,  that  this  man  has 
no  disposition  toward  such  worship,  and  he  rather  requires  to  be  inform- 
ed of  the  grounds  of  all  such  obligation. 

"  The  duty  of  family  devotion,  therefore,  let  it  be  remembered,  though 
it  had  been  minutely  enjoined  as  to  both  substance  and  season,  would 
not,  after  all,  have  been  founded  only  on  such  injunctions.  I  want  the 
reader  thoroughly  to  understand  the  character  of  a  Christian,  the  consti- 
tution of  the  family  ;  and  out  of  this  character  and  that  constitution,  he 
will  find  certain  duties  to  arise  necessarily  ;  that  is,  they  are  essential 
to  the  continuance  and  well  being  of  himself  as  a  Christian  parent,  and 
of  the  constitution  over  which  he  is  set.  In  this  case  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  their  obligation,  and  for  a  precept  there  is  no  necessity. 
The  Almighty,  in  his  word,  has  not  only  said  nothing  in  vain,  but  nothing 
except  what  is  necessary.  Now,  as  to  family  worship,  for  a  particular 
precept  I  have  no  wish ;  no,  not  even  for  the  sake  of  others,  because  I 
am  persuaded  that  the  Christian,  in  his  sober  senses,  will  naturally  obey, 
and  no  other  can. 

*'  To  apply,  however,  this  request  for  a  precise  precept  to  some  other 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  497 

branches  of  family  duty : — What  would  be  thought  of  me,  were  I  to 
demand  an  express  precept  to  enforce  my  obhgation  to  feed  my  children, 
and  another  to  oblige  me  to  clothe  them  ?  one  to  express  my  obligation 
to  teach  them  the  use  of  letters,  and  another  to  secure  my  training  them 
to  lawful  or  creditable  professions  or  employments  ?  *  All  this,'  very 
properly  you  might  reply,  *  is  absurd  in  the  highest  degree ;  your  obh- 
gation rests  on  much  higher  ground ;  nay,  doth  not  nature  itself 
teach  you  in  this,  and  much  more  than  this  7'  '  Very  true,'  I  reply  ; 
♦  and  IS  renewed  nature,  then,  not  to  teach  me  fat  more  still  ?  To  what 
other  nature  are  such  words  as  these  addressed? — Whatsoever  things 
are  true,  whatsoever  things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things  are  just,  what^ 
soever  things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  whatsoever  things 
are  of  good  report,  if  there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be  any  praise, 
think  on  these  things.^ 

"Independently,  however,  of  all  this  evidence  with  any  tational  Chris-* 
tian  parent,  I  may  confirm  and  establish  his  mind  on  much  higher 
ground  than  even  that  which  these  pointed  examples  afford.  To  such 
a  parent  I  might  say,  *  Without  hesitation,  you  will  admit  that  your  ob- 
hgations  to  your  family  are  to  be  measured  now,  and  on  the  day  of 
final  account,  by  your  capacity,— ^.s  a  man  by  your  natural,  as  a  Chris- 
tian by  your  spiritual  capacity  ?  and,  however  you  may  feel  conscious 
of  falling  short  daily,  that  you  are  under  obligation  to  honour  God  to  the 
utmost  limit  of  this  capacity  ?  You  will  also  allow  that,  standing  where 
you  do,  you  are  not  now,  hke  a  solitary  orphan  without  relatives,  to  be 
regarded  only  as  a  single  individual.  God  himself,  your  Creator,  youf 
Saviour,  and  your  Judge,  regards  you  as  the  head  of  a  family ;  and, 
therefore,  in  possession  of  a  sacred  trust ;  you  have  the  care  of  souls  1 
Now  if  you  really  do  measure  obhgation  by  capacity,  then  you  will  also 
at  once  allow,  that  you  must  do  what  you  can,  that  he  may,  from  your 
family,  have  as  much  honour  as  possible. 

« '  Without  hesitation  you  will  also  allow  that  God  daily  preserves 
you  ?  And  does  he  not  also  preserve  your  family  ?  But  if  he  preserves^ 
he  has  a  right  of  property  in  each  and  all  under  your  roof.  Shall  he 
not,  therefore,  have  from  you  acknowledgment  of  this  ?  If  daily  he 
preserves,  shall  he  not  be  daily  acknowledged  ?  And  if  acknowledged 
at  all,  how  ought  he  to  be  so,  if  not  upon  your  knees  ?  And  how  can 
they  know  this  if  they  do  not  hear  it  ? 

"  ♦  Without  hesitation  you  will  also  allow  that  you  are  a  social  as  well 
as  a  reasonable  being  ?  And  often  have  you,  therefore,  felt  how  much 
the  soothing  influence  of  their  sweet  society  has  sustained  you  under 
your  cares  and  trials,  and  grief  itself.  O  !  surely  then,  as  a  social  be- 
ing, you  owe  to  them  social  worship ;  nor  should  you  ever  forget,  that, 
in  ancient  days,  there  was  social  worship  here  before  it  could  be  jiny 
where  else.' " 

Vol.  U.  32 


498  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  same  excellent  writer  has  not,  in  his  subsequent  argument,  given 
to  the  last  remark  in  the  above  quotation  all  the  force  which  it  demands  ; 
for  that  social  worship  existed  before  worship  more  properly  called 
public,  that  is  worship  in  indiscriminate  assemblies,  is  the  point,  which, 
when  followed  out,  most  fully  establishes  the  obligation.  A  great  part, 
at  least,  of  the  worship  of  the  patriarchal  times  was  domestic.  The 
worship  of  God  was  observed  in  the  families  of  Abraham,  Jacob,  and 
Job ;  nay,  the  highest  species  of  worship,  the  offering  of  sacrifices,  which 
it  could  not  have  been  without  Divine  appointment.  It  arose,  therefore, 
out  of  the  original  constitution  of  a  family,  that  the  father  and  natural 
head  was  invested  with  a  sacred  and  religious  character,  and  that 
with  reference  to  his  family ;  and  if  this  has  never  been  revoked  by 
subsequent  prohibition ;  but  on  the  contrary,  if  its  continuance  has  been 
subsequently  recognized ;  then  the  family  priesthood  continues  in  force, 
and  stands  on  the  same  ground  as  several  other  religious  obligations, 
which  have  passed  from  one  dispensation  of  revealed  religion  to  another, 
without  express  re-enactment. 

Let  us  then  inquire,  whether  any  such  revocation  of  this  office,  as 
originally  vested  in  the  father  of  a  family,  took  place  after  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  particular  order  of  priests  under  the  Mosaic  economy.  It  is 
true  that  national  sacrifices  were  offered  by  the  Aaronical  priests,  and 
perhaps  some  of  those  consuetudinary  sacrifices,  which,  in  the  patriar- 
chal ages,  were  offered  by  the  heads  of  families,  and  had  reference 
specially  to  the  general  dispensation  of  reUgion  under  which  every 
family  was  equally  placed  ;  yet  the  passover  was  a  solemn  rehgious  act, 
the  domestic  nature  of  which  is  plainly  marked,  and  it  was  to  be  an 
ordinance  for  ever,  and  therefore  was  not  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
heads  of  families  by  the  institution  of  the  Aaronical  priesthood,  although 
the  ceremony  comprehended  several  direct  acts  of  worship.  The 
solemn  instruction  of  the  family  is  also  in  the  law  of  Moses  enjoined 
upon  the  father,  "  Thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  to  thy  children  ;" 
and  he  was  also  directed  to  teach  them  the  import  of  the  different  festi- 
vals, and  other  commemorative  institutions.  Thus  the  original  relation 
of  the  father  to  his  family,  which  existed  in  the  patriarchal  age,  is  seen 
still  in  existence,  though  changed  in  some  of  its  circumstances  by  the 
law.  He  is  still  the  religious  teacher ;  still  he  offers  prayers  for  them 
to  God  ;  and  still  "  blesses," — an  act  which  imports  both  prayer,  praise, 
and  official  benediction.  So  the  family  of  Jesse  had  a  yearly  sacrifice, 
1  Sam.  XX,  6.  So  David,  although  not  a  priest,  returned  to  "  bless  his 
household ;"  and  our  Lord  filled  the  office  of  the  master  of  a  family,  as 
appears  from  his  eating  the  passover  with  his  disciples,  and  presiding 
as  such  over  the  whole  rite :  and  although  the  passage,  "  Pour  out  thy 
fury  upon  the  heathen,  and  upon  the  families  which  call  not  upon  thy 
name,"  Jer.  x,  25,  does  not  perhaps  decidedly  refer  to  acts  of  domestic 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  499 

worship,  yet  it  is  probable  that  the  phraseology  was  influenced  by  that 
practice  among  the  pious  Jews  themselves ; — neither  did  the  heathen 
nationally,  nor  in  their  families,  acknowledge  God.  Nor  is  it  a  trifling 
confirmation  of  the  ancient  practice  of  a  formal  and  visible  domestic 
religion,  that  in  paganism,  which  corrupted  the  forms  of  the  true  reli- 
gion, and  especially  those  of  the  patriarchal  dispensation,  we  see  the 
signs  of  a  family  as  well  as  a  public  idolatry,  as  exhibited  in  their  private 
*'  chambers  of  imagery,"  their  household  deities  ;  and  the  religious  cere- 
monies which  it  was  incumbent  upon  the  head  of  every  house  to  perform. 

The  sacred  character  and  oflSce  of  the  father  and  master  of  a  house- 
hold  passed  from  Judaism  into  Christianity  ;  for  here,  also,  we  find 
nothing  which  revokes  and  repeals  it.  A  duty  so  well  understood  both 
among  Jews  and  even  heathens,  as  that  the  head  of  the  house  ought 
to  influence  its  religious  character,  needed  no  special  injunction.  The 
father  or  master  who  beheved  was  baptized,  and  all  his  "  house  ;"  the 
first  rehgious  societies  were  chiefly  domestic  ;  and  the  antiquity  of  do- 
mestic  religious  services  among  Christians,  leaver  it  unquestionable,  that 
when  the  number  of  Christians  increased  so  as  to  require  a  separate 
assembly  in  some  common  room  or  church,  the  domestic  worship  was 
not  superseded.  But  for  the  division  of  verses  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  it  would  scarcely  have  been  suspected 
that  the  first  and  second  verses  contained  two  distinct  and  unconnected 
precepts, — "  Masters  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just  and 
equal,  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  Master  in  heaven  ;  continue  in 
prayer,  and  watch  in  the  same  with  thanksgiving ;"  a  collocation  of 
persons  and  duties  which  seems  to  intimate  that  the  sense  of  the  apostle 
was,  that  the  "servant,"  the  slave  should  partake  of  the  benefit  of  those 
continual  prayers  and  daily  thanksgivings  which  it  is  enjoined  upon  the 
master  to  ofler. 

As  the  obligation  to  this  branch  of  devotion  is  passed  over  by  Paley, 
so  the  advantages  of  family  worship  are  but  very  in^erfectly  stated  by 
him.  The  offering  of  prayer  to  God  in  a  family  cannot  but  lay  the 
ground  of  a  special  regard  to  its  interests  and  concerns  on  the  part  of 
him,  who  is  thus  constantly  acknowledged  ;  and  the  advantage,  there- 
fore, is  more  than  a  mere  sentimental  one  ;  and  more  than  that  of  giv- 
ing effect  to  the  "  master's  example."  The  blessings  of  providence  and 
of  grace  ;  defence  against  evil,  or  pecuhar  supports  under  it,  may  thus 
be  expected  from  Him,  who  has  said,  "  In  all  thy  ways  acknowledge  him, 
and  he  shall  direct  thy  paths ;"  and  that  when  two  or  three  are  met  in 
his  name,  he  is  "  in  the  midst  of  them."  The  family  is  a  "  Church  in 
a  house  ;"  and  its  ministrations,  as  they  are  acceptable  to  God,  cannot 
but  be  followed  by  his  direct  blessing. 

Public  prayer,  under  which  we  include  the  assembhng  of  ourselves 
together  for  every  branch  of  public  worship. 

2 


500  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  Scriptural  obligation  of  this  is  partly  founded  upon  example,  and 
partly  upon  precept;  so  that  no  person  who  admits  that  authority,  can  ques- 
tion this  great  duty  without  manifest  and  criminal  inconsistency.  The 
institution  of  public  worship  under  the  law  ;  the  practice  of  synagogue 
worship  among  the  Jews,  from  at  least  the  time  of  Ezra,  (9)  cannot  be 
questioned  ;  both  which  were  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  our  Lord  and 
his  apostles.  The  course  of  the  synagogue  worship  became  indeed  the 
model  of  that  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  consisted  in  prayer,  reading 
and  explaining  the  Scriptures,  and  singing  of  psalms ;  and  thus  one  of 
the  most  important  means  of  instructing  nations,  and  of  spreading  and 
maintaining  the  influence  of  morals  and  religion  among  a  people,  passed 
from  the  Jews  into  all  Christian  countries. 

The  preceptive  authority  for  our  regular  attendance  upon  public  wor- 
ship, is  either  inferential  or  direct.  The  command  to  publish  the  Gos- 
pel includes  the  obligation  of  assembling  to  hear  it ;  the  name  by  which 
a  Christian  society  is  designated  in  Scripture,  is  a  Church ;  which  sig- 
nifies an  "  assembly"  for  the  transaction  of  some  business  ;  and,  in  the 
case  of  a  Christian  assembly,  the  business  must  be  necessarily  spiritual, 
and  include  the  sacred  exercises  of  prayer,  praise,  and  hearing  the  Scrip- 
tures. But  we  have  more  direct  precepts,  although  the  practice  was 
obviously  continued  from  Judaism,  and  was  therefore  consuetudinary. 
Some  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  are  commanded  to  be  read  in  the  Churches. 
The  singing  of  psalms,  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,  is  enjoined  as  an  act 
of  solemn  worship,  "to  the  Lord ;"  and  St.  Paul  cautions  the  Hebrews 
that  they  "  forsake  not  the  assembling  of  themselves  together."  The 
practice  of  the  primitive  age  is  also  manifest  from  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul. 
The  Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated  by  the  body  of  believers  collectively  ; 
and  this  apostle  prescribes  to  the  Corinthians  regulations  for  the  exercises 
of  prayer  and  prophesyings,  "  when  they  came  together  in  the  Church," 
— the  assembly.  The  statedness  and  order  of  these  "  holy  offices"  in 
the  primitive  Church,  appears  also  from  the  apostolical  epistle  of  St. 
Clement :  "  We  ought  also,  looking  into  the  depths  of  the  Divine  know- 
ledge, to  do  all  things  in  order,  whatsoever  the  Lord  hath  commanded 
to  be  done.  We  ought  to  make  our  oblations,  and  perform  our  holy 
offices,  at  their  appointed  seasons ;  for  these  he  hath  comrmnded  to  be 
done,  not  irregularly  or  by  chance,  but  at  determinate  times  and  hours ; 
as  he  hath  hkewise  ordained  by  his  supreme  will,  where,  and  by  what 
persons,  they  shall  be  performed ;  that  so  all  things  being  done  accord- 
ing  to  his  pleasure,  may  be  acceptable  in  his  sight."  This  passage  is 
remarkable  for  urging  a  Divine  authority  for  the  public  services  of  the 

(9)  Some  writers  contend  that  synagogues  were  as  old  as  the  ceremonial  law. 
That  they  were  ancient  is  proved  from  Acts  xv,  21, — "  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in 
every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbath 
day." 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  601 

Church,  by  which  St.  Clement,  no  doubt,  means  the  authority  of  the 
inspired  directions  of  the  apostles. 

The  ends  of  the  institution  of  public  worship  are  of  such  obvious  im. 
portance,  that  it  must  ever  be  considered  as  one  of  the  most  condescend- 
ing and  gracious  dispensations  of  God  to  man.  By  this  his  Church  con- 
fesses  his  nane  before  the  world ;  by  this  the  public  leaching  of  his 
word  is  associated  with  acts  calculated  to  affect  the  mind  with  that  so- 
lemnity which  is  the  best  preparation  for  hearing  it  to  edification.  It  is 
thus  that  the  ignorant  and  vicious  are  collected  together,  and  instructed 
and  warned ;  the  invitations  of  mercy  are  published  to  the  guilty,  and 
the  sorrowful  and  afflicted  are  comforted.  In  these  assemblies  God,  by 
his  Holy  Spirit,  diffuses  his  vital  and  sanctifying  influence,  and  takes  the 
devout  into  a  fellowship  with  himself,  from  which  they  derive  strength 
to  do  and  to  suffer  his  will  in  the  various  scenes  of  life,  while  he  thus 
affords  them  a  foretaste  of  the  deep  and  hallowed  pleasures  which  are 
reserved  for  them  at  "his  right  hand  for  evermore.'*  Prayers  and  in- 
tercessions are  here  heard  for  national  and  public  interests ;  and  while 
the  benefit  of  these  exercises  descends  upon  a  country,  all  are  kept  sen- 
sible of  the  dependence  of  every  public  and  personal  interest  upon  God. 
Praise  calls  forth  the  grateful  emotions,  and  gives  cheerfulness  to  piety ; 
and  that  "  instruction  in  righteousness,"  which  is  so  perpetually  repeated, 
diffuses  the  principles  of  morality  and  rehgion  throughout  society ;  en- 
hghtens  and  gives  activity  to  conscience  ;  raises  the  standard  of  morals  ; 
attaches  shame  to  vice,  and  praise  to  virtue ;  and  thus  exerts  a  power- 
fully purifying  influence  upon  mankind.  Laws  thus  receive  a  force, 
which,  in  other  circumstances,  they  could  not  acquire,  even  were  they 
enacted  in  as  great  perfection  ;  and  the  administration  of  justice  is  aided 
by  the  strongest  possible  obligation  and  sanction  being  given  to  legal 
oaths.  The  domestic  relations  are  rendered  more  strong  and  interest- 
ing by  the  very  habit  of  the  attendance  of  families  upon  the  sacred  ser- 
vices of  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord  ;  and  the  rich  and  the  poor  meeting 
together  there,  and  standing  on  the  same  common  ground  of  sinners 
before  God,  equally  dependent  upon  him,  and  equaUy  suing  for  his 
mercy,  has  a  powerful,  though  often  an  insensible,  influence  in  humbling 
the  pride  which  is  nourished  by  superior  rank,  and  in  raising  the  lower 
classes  above  abjectness  of  spirit,  without  injuring  their  humility.  Piety, 
benevolence,  and  patriotism,  are  equafly  dependent  for  their  purity  and 
vigour  upon  the  regular  and  devout  worship  of  God  in  the  simplicity  of 
the  Christian  dispensation. 

A  few  words  on  liturgies  or  forms  of  prayer  may  here  have  a  proper 
place. 

The  necessity  of  adhering  to  the  simplicity  of  the  first  age  of  the 
Church,  as  to  worship,  need  scarcely  be  defended  by  argument.  If  no 
liberty  were  intended  to  be  given  to  accommodate  the  modes  of  worship 

2 


502  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

to  the  circumstanjces  of  different  people  and  times,  we  should,  no  doubt, 
have  had  some  express  directory  on  the  subject  in  Scripture ;  but  in  the 
.exercise  of  thia  liberty  steady  regard  is  to  be  paid  to  the  spirit  and  genius 
and  simple  character  of  Christianity,  and  a  respectful  deference  to  the 
practice  of  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  successors.  Without  these, 
formahty  and  superstition,  to  both  of  which  human  nature  is  very  liable, 
are  apt  to  be  induced ;  and  when  once  they  enter  they  increase,  as  the 
history  of  the  Church  sufficiently  shows,  indefinitely,  until  true  religion 
is  buried  beneath  the  mass  of  observances  which  have  been  introduced 
as  her  aids  and  handmaids.  Our  Lord's  own  words  are  here  directly 
applicable  and  important :  "  God  is  a  Spirit ;  and  they  that  worship  him, 
must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  The  worship  must  be  adapted 
to  the  spiritual  nature  of  God,  and  to  his  revealed  perfections.  To  such 
a  Being  the  number  of  prayers,  the  quantity  of  worship  so  to  speak,  to 
which  corrupt  Churches  have  attached  so  much  importance,  can  be  of 
fio  value.  As  a  Spirit,  he  seeks  the  worship  of  the  spirit  of  man ;  and 
regards  nothing  external  in  that  worship  but  as  it  is  the  expression  of 
|:hose  emotions  of  humility,  faith,  gratitude,  and  hope,  which  are  the 
principles  he  condescendingly  approves  in  man.  "  True"  worship,  we 
are  also  taught  by  these  words,  is  the  worship  of  the  heart ;  it  springs 
from  humility,  faith,  gratitude,  and  hope ;  and  its  final  cause,  or  end,  is 
to  better  man,  by  bringing  upon  his  affections  the  sanctifying  and  com- 
forting influence  of  grace.  The  modes  of  worship  which  best  promote 
this  end,  and  most  eflfectually  call  these  principles  into  exercise,  are 
those  therefore  which  best  accord  with  our  Lord's  rule  :  and  if  in  the 
apostolic  age  we  see  this  end  of  worship  most  directly  accomplished, 
and  these  emotions  most  vigorously  and  with  greatest  purity  excited,  the 
ngvelties  of  human  invention  can  add  nothing  to  the  effect,  and  for  that 
very  reason  have  greatly  diminished  it.  In  the  Latin  and  Greek  Churches 
we  see  a  striking  conformity  in  the  vestments,  the  processions,  the  pic- 
tures, and  images,  and  other  parts  of  a  complex  and  gorgeous  ceremo- 
nial, to  the  Jewish  typical  worship,  and  to  that  of  the  Gentiles,  which 
was  an  imitation  of  it  without  typical  meaning.  But  it  is  not  even  pre- 
tended that  in  these  circumstances  it  is  founded  upon  primitive  practice  ; 
or,  if  pretended,  this  is  obviously  an  impudent  assumption. 

Liturgies,  or  forms  of  service,  do  not  certainly  come  under  this  cen- 
sure, except  when  they  contain  superstitious  acts  of  devotion  to  saints, 
or  are  so  complicated,  numerous,  and  lengthened,  that  the  only  princi- 
ple to  which  they  can  be  referred  is  the  common,  but  unworthy  notion, 
that  the  Divine  Being  is  rendered  placable  by  continued  service ;  or 
that  the  wearisome  exercise  of  vocal  prayers,  continued  for  long  periods, 
and  in  painful  postures,  is  a  necessary  penance  to  man,  and,  as  such, 
acceptable  to  God.  In  those  Reformed  Churches  of  Christendom  in 
which  they  are  used,  they  have  been  greatly  abridged,  as  v/ell  as  puri- 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  503 

fied  from  the  corruptions  of  the  middle  ages.  In  some  they  are  more 
copious  than  in  others,  while  many  religious  societies  have  rejected  their 
use  altogether ;  and  in  a  few  they  are  so  used  as  to  afford  competent 
space  also  for  extempore  devotion. 

The  advocates  and  opponents  of  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer  in  public 
worship  have  both  run  mto  great  extremes,  and  attempted  generally  to 
prove  too  much  against  each  other. 

If  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer  in  prose  be  objected  to,  their  use  in  verse 
ought  to  be  rejected  on  the  same  principle  ;  and  extemporaneous  psalms 
and  hymns  must,  for  consistency's  sake,  be  required  of  a  minister,  as 
well  as  extemporaneous  prayers ;  or  the  practice  of  singing,  as  a  part 
of  God's  worship,  must  be  given  up.  Again :  If  the  objection  to  the 
use  of  a  form  of  prayer  be  not  in  its  matter ;  but  merely  as  it  contains 
petitions  not  composed  by  ourselves,  or  by  the  officiating  minister  on  the 
occasion ;  the  same  objection  would  lie  to  our  using  any  petitions  found 
in  the  Psalms  or  other  devotional  parts  of  Scripture,  although  adapted 
to  our  case,  and  expressed  in  words  far  more  fitting  than  our  own.  If 
we  think  precomposed  prayers  incompatible  with  devotion,  we  make  it 
essential  to  devotion  that  we  should  frame  our  desires  into  our  own 
words  ;  whereas  nothing  can  be  more  plain,  than  that  whoever  has  com- 
posed the  words,  if  they  correspond  with  our  desires,  they  become  the 
prayer  of  our  hearts,  and  are,  as  such,  acceptable  to  God.  The  objec- 
tion  to  petitionary  forms  composed  by  others,  supposes  also  that  we 
know  the  things  which  it  is  proper  for  us  to  ask  without  the  assistance 
of  others.  This  may  be  sometimes  the  case  ;  but  as  we  must  be  taught 
what  to  pray  for  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  so,  in  proportion  as  we  under- 
stand what  we  are  authorized  to  pray  for  by  those  Scriptures,  our  prayers 
become  more  varied,  and  distinct,  and  comprehensive,  and,  therefore, 
edifying.  But  all  helps  to  the  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  as  to 
what  they  encourage  us  to  ask  of  God,  is  a  help  to  us  in  prayer.  Thus 
the  exposition  of  Christian  privileges  and  blessings  from  the  pulpit, 
affords  us  this  assistance ;  thus  the  public  extempore  prayers  we  hear 
offered  by  ministers  and  enlightened  Christians,  assist  us  in  the  same 
respect ;  and  the  written  and  recorded  prayers  of  the  wise  and  pious  in 
different  ages,  fulfil  the  same  office,  and  to  so  great  an  extent,  that 
scarcely  any  who  offer  extempore  prayer  escape  falling  into  phrases  and 
terms  of  expression,  or  even  entire  petitions,  which  have  been  originally 
derived  from  liturgies.  Even  in  extempore  services,  the  child  accus- 
tomed to  the  modes  of  precatory  expression  used  by  the  parent,  and  the 
people  to  those  of  their  ministers,  imitate  them  unconsciously ;  finding 
the  desires  of  their  hearts  already  embodied  in  suitable  and  impressive 
words. 

The  objection,  therefore,  to  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer,  when  abso- 
lute, is  absurd,  and  involves  principles  which  no  one  acts  upon,  or  can 

2 


504  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [rXUT 

act  upon.  It  also  disregards  example  and  antiquity.  Tlie  high  priest 
of  the  Jews  pronounced  yearly  a  form  of  benediction.  The  Psalms  of 
David,  and  other  inspired  Hebrew  poets,  whether  chanted  or  read  makes 
no  difference,  were  composed  for  the  use  of  the  sanctuary,  and  formed 
a  part  of  the  regular  devotions  of  the  people.  Forms  of  prayer  were 
used  in  the  synagogue  service  of  the  Jews,  which,  though  multiplied  in 
subsequent  times,  so  as  to  render  the  service  tedious  and  superstitious, 
had  among  them  some  that  were  in  use  between  the  return  from  the 
captivity  and  the  Christian  era,  and  were  therefore  sanctioned  by  the 
practice  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  {Prideaux's  Connection,  Fol. 
edit.  vol.  i,  p.  304.)  John  Baptist  appears  also  to  have  given  a  form 
of  prayer  to  his  disciples,  in  which  he  was  followed  by  our  Lord.  The 
latter  has  indeed  been  questioned,  and  were  it  to  be  argued  that  our  Lord 
intended  that  form  of  prayer  alone  to  be  used,  too  much  would  be  proved 
by  the  advocates  of  forms.  On  the  other  hand,  although  the  words, 
*'  after  this  manner  pray  ye,"  intimate  that  the  Lord's  prayer  was  given 
as  a  model  of  prayer,  so  the  words  in  another  evangelist,  "  when  ye 
pray,  say,"  as  fully  indicate  an  intention  to  prescribe  a  form.  It  seems, 
therefore,  fair,  to  consider  the  Lord's  prayer  as  intended  both  as  a  model 
and  a.  form  ;  and  he  must  be  very  fastidious  who,  though  he  uses  it  as 
the  model  of  his  own  prayers,  by  paraphrasing  its  petitions  in  his  own 
words,  should  scruple  to  use  it  in  its  native  simplicity  and  force  as  a 
form.  That  its  use  as  a  form,  though  not  its  exclusive  use,  was  origi- 
nally intended  by  our  Lord,  appears,  I  think,  very  clearly,  from  the  dis- 
ciples  desiring  to  be  taught  to  pray,  "  as  John  taught  his  disciples."  If, 
as  it  has  been  alleged,  the  Jewish  rabbins,  at  so  early  a  period,  were  in 
the  custom  of  giving  short  forms  of  prayer  to  their  disciples,  to  be  used 
in  the  form  given,  or  to  be  enlarged  upon  by  the  pupil  at  his  pleasure, 
this  would  fully  explain  the  request  of  the  disciples.  However,  without 
laying  much  stress  upon  the  antiquity  of  this  practice,  we  may  urge, 
that  if  John  Baptist  gave  a  form  of  prayer  to  his  followers,  the  conduct 
of  our  Lord  in  teaching  his  disciples  to  pray,  by  what  is  manifestly  a 
regularly  connected  series  of  petitions,  is  accordant  with  their  request ; 
but  if  the  Baptist  only  taught  what  topics  ought  to  be  introduced  in 
prayer,  and  the  disciples  of  Jesus  wished  to  be  instructed  in  like  man- 
ner,  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  their  request  being  granted,  not  by  his 
giving  directions  as  to  the  topics  of  prayer,  but  by  his  uttering  a  regular 
prayer  itself.  That  our  Lord  intended  that  prayer  to  be  used  as  adapted 
to  that  period  of  his  dispensation ;  and  that  the  petitions  in  that  form 
are  admirably  appUcable  to  every  period  of  Christianity,  and  may  be 
used  profitably ;  and  that  its  use  implies  a  devout  respect  to  the  words 
of  Him  "  who  spake  as  never  man  spake ;"  are  points  from  which  there 
does  not  appear  any  reasonable  ground  of  dissent. 

The  practice  of  the  primitive  Church  may  also  be  urged  in  favour  of 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  505 

liturgies.  Founded  as  the  early  worship  of  Christians  was,  upon  the 
model  of  the  synagogue,  the  use  of  short  forms  of  prayer,  or  collects, 
by  them,  is  at  least  probable.  It  must  indeed  be  granted  that  extended 
and  regular  liturgies  were  of  a  later  date ;  and  that  extempore  prayers 
were  constantly  offered  in  their  assemblies  for  public  worship.  This 
appears  clear  enough  from  several  passages  in  St.  Paul's  epistles,  and 
the  writings  of  the  fathers  ;  so  that  no  hturgical  service  can  be  so  framed 
as  entirely  to  shut  out,  or  not  to  leave  convenient  space  for,  extempore 
prayer  by  the  minister  without  departing  from  the  earliest  models.  But 
the  Lord's  prayer  appears  to  have  been  in  frequent  use  in  the  earUest 
times,  and  a  series  of  collects ;  which  seems  allowed  even  by  Lord 
King,  although  he  proves  that  the  practice  for  the  minister  to  pray 
"  according  to  his  abiUty,"  (1)  that  is,  to  use  his  gifts  in  extempore 
prayer,  was  a  constant  part  of  the  public  worship  in  the  first  ages. 

Much,  therefore,  is  evidently  left  to  wisdom  and  prudence  in  a  case 
where  we  have  no  explicit  direction  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  as  a  general 
rule  to  be  modified  by  circumstances,  we  may  perhaps  with  safety 
affirm,  that  the  best  mode  of  public  worship  is  that  which  unites  a  brief 
Scriptural  liturgy  with  extempore  prayers  by  the  minister.  This  will 
more  clearly  appear  if  we  consider  the  exceedingly  futile  character  of 
those  objections  which  have  been  reciprocally  employed  by  the  oppo- 
nents and  advocates  of  forms,  when  they  have  carried  their  views  to  an 
extreme. 

To  public  hturgies  it  has  been  objected,  that  «  forms  of  prayer  com- 
posed in  one  age  become  unfit  for  another,  by  the  unavoidable  change 
of  language,  circumstances,  and  opinions."  To  this  it  may  be  answered, 
1.  That  whatever  weight  there  may  be  in  the  objection,  it  can  only 
apply  to  cases  where  the  form  is,  in  all  its  parts,  made  imperative  upon 
the  officiating  minister ;  or  where  the  Church  imposing  it,  neglects  to 
accommodate  the  hturgy  to  meet  all  such  changes,  when  innocent.  2. 
That  the  general  language  of  no  form  of  prayer  among  ourselves,  has 
become  obsolete  in  point  of  fact ;  a  few  expressions  only  being,  accord- 
ing to  modern  notions,  uncouth,  or  unusual.  3.  That  the  petitions  they 
contain  are  suited,  more  or  less,  to  all  men  at  all  times,  whatever  may 
be  their  «  circumstances  ;"  and  that  as  to  "  opinions,"  if  they  so  change 
in  a  Church  as  to  become  unscriptural,  it  is  an  advantage  arismg  out 
of  a  public  form,  that  it  is  auxiliary  to  the  Scriptures  in  bearing  testi- 
mony against  them  ;  that  a  natural  reverence  for  ancient  forms  tends  to 
preserve  their  use,  after  opinions  have  become  lax  ;  and  that  they  are 
sometimes  the  means  of  recovering  a  Church  from  error. 

Another  objection  is,  that  the  perpetual  repetition  of  the  same  form 
of  words  produces  weariness  and  inattentiveness  in  the  congregation, 

(1)  This  expression  occurs  in  Justin  Martyr's  Second  Apology,  where  he  par- 
ticularly  describes  the  mode  of  primitive  worship. 


506  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

There  is  some  truth  in  this ;  but  it  is  often  carried  much  too  far.  A 
devotional  mind  will  not  weary  in  the  repetition  of  a  Scriptural  and 
well  arranged  liturgy,  if  not  too  long  to  be  sustained  by  the  infirmity  of 
the  body.  Whether  forms  are  used,  or  extempore  prayer  be  practised, 
effort  and  application  of  mind  are  necessary  in  the  hearer  to  enter  into 
the  spirit  of  the  words ;  and  each  mode  is  wearisome  to  the  careless 
and  indevout,  though  not,  we  grant,  in  equal  degrees.  The  objection, 
as  far  as  it  has  any  weight,  would  be  reduced  to  nothing,  were  the 
liturgy  repeated  only  at  one  service  on  the  Sabbath,  so  that  at  the 
others  the  minister  might  be  left  at  liberty  to  pray  with  more  direct 
reference  to  the  special  circumstances  of  the  people,  the  Church,  and 
the  world. 

The  general  character  which  all  forms  of  prayer  must  take,  is  a 
third  objection  ;  but  this  is  not  true  absolutely  of  any  liturgy,  and  much 
less  of  that  of  the  Church  of  England.  All  prayer  must,  and  ought  to 
be,  general,  because  we  ask  for  blessings  which  all  others  need  as  much 
as  ourselves ;  but  that  particularity  which  goes  into  the  different  parts 
of  a  Christian's  rehgious  experience  and  conflicts,  dangers  and  duties, 
is  found  very  forcibly  and  feelingly  expressed  in  that  liturgy.  That 
greater  particularity  is  often  needed  than  this  excellent  form  of  prayer 
contains,  must,  however,  be  allowed ;  and  this,  as  well  as  prayer  suited 
to  occasional  circumstances,  might  be  supplied  by  the  more  frequent  use 
of  extempore  prayer,  without  displacing  the  liturgy  itself.  The  objec- 
tion, therefore,  has  no  force,  except  when  extempore  prayer  is  excluded, 
or  confined  within  too  narrow  a  limit. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  indiscriminate  advocates  of  hturgies  have 
carried  their  objections  to  extempore  prayer  to  a  very  absurd  extreme. 
Without  a  liturgy  the  folly  and  enthusiasm  of  many,  they  say,  is  in 
danger  of  producing  extravagant  or  impious  addresses  to  God ;  that  a 
congregation  is  confused  between  their  attention  to  the  minister,  and 
their  own  devotion,  being  ignorant  of  each  petition  before  they  hear  it ; 
and  to  this  they  add  the  labouring  recollection  or  tumultuous  delivery  of 
many  extempore  speakers.  The  first  and  third  of  these  objections  can 
iiave  force  only  where  foolish,  enthusiastic,  and  incompetent  ministers 
are  employed ;  and  so  the  evil,  which  can  but  rarely  exist,  is  easily 
remedied.  The  second  objection  lay  as  forcibly  against  the  inspired 
prayers  of  the  Scriptures  at  the  time  they  were  first  uttered,  as  against 
extempore  prayers  now  ;  and  it  would  lie  against  the  use  of  the  collects, 
and  occasional  unfamiliar  forms  of  prayer  introduced  into  the  regular 
liturgy,  in  the  case  of  all  who  are  not  able  to  read,  or  who  happen  not 
to  have  prayer  books.  We  may  also  observe,  that  if  evils  of  so  serious 
a  kind  are  the  necessary  results  of  extempore  praying ;  if  devotion  is 
hindered,  and  pain  and  confusion  of  mind  produced ;  and  impiety  and 
enthusiasm  promoted  ;  it  is  rather  singular  that  extempore  prayer  should 
2 


THIRD. 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  507 


have  been  so  constantly  practised  in  the  primitive  Church,  and  that  it 
should  not  have  been  wholly  prohibited  to  the  clergy  on  all  occasions, 
in  later  times.  The  facts,  however,  of  our  own  age  prove  that  there  is, 
to  say  the  least,  an  equal  degree  of  devotion,  an  equal  absence  of  con- 
fusedness  of  thought  in  the  worshippers,  where  no  liturgy  is  used,  as 
where  extempore  prayer  is  unknown.  Instances  of  folly  and  enthusiasm 
are  also  but  few  in  the  ministry  of  such  Churches ;  and  when  they 
occur  they  have  a  better  remedy  than  entirely  to  exclude  extempore 
prayers  by  liturgies,  and  thus  to  shut  out  the  great  benefits  of  that 
mode  of  worship,  for  the  loss  of  which  no  exclusive  form  of  service  can 
atone. 

The  whole,  we  think,  comes  to  this, — that  there  are  advantages  in 
each  mode  of  worship ;  and  that,  when  combined  prudently,  the  public 
service  of  the  sanctuary  has  its  most  perfect  constitution.  Much,  how- 
ever, in  the  practice  of  Churches  is  to  be  regulated  by  due  respect  to 
differences  of  opinion,  and  even  to  prejudice,  on  a  point  upon  which  we 
are  left  at  liberty  by  the  Scriptures,  and  which  must  therefore  be  ranked 
among  things  prudential.  Here,  as  in  many  other  things.  Christians 
must  give  place  to  each  other,  and  do  all  things  "  in  charity." 

Praise   and   thanksgwing  are  implied  in   prayer,    and   included 
indeed  in  our  definition  of  that  duty,  as  given  above.     But  beside  those 
ascriptions  of  praise  and   expressions  of  gratitude,  which  are  to  be 
jTiingled  with  the  precatory  part  of  our  devotions,  solemn  psalms  and 
hymns  of  praise,  to  be  sung  with  the  voice,  and  accompanied  wdth  the 
melody  of  the  heart,  are  of  apostolic  injunction,  and  form  an  important 
and  exhilarating  part  of  the  worship  of  God,  whether  public  or  social. 
It  is  thus  that  God  is  pubhcly  acknowledged  as  the  great  source  of  all 
good,  and  the  end  to  which  all  good  ought  again  to  tend  in  love  and 
obedience;   and  the  practice  of  stirring  up  our  hearts  to  a  thankful 
remembrance  of  his  goodness,  is  equally  important  in  its  moral  influence 
upon  our  feelings  now,   and  as  it  tends  to  prepare  us  for  our  eternal 
enjoyment  hereafter.     "  Prayer,"  says  a  divine  of  the  English  Church, 
"  awakens  in  us  a  sorrowful  sense  of  wants  and  imperfections,  and  con- 
fession induces  a  sad  remembrance  of  our  guilt  and  miscarriages ;  but 
thanksgiving  has  nothing  in  it  but  a  warm  sense  of  the  mightiest  love, 
and  the  most  endearing  goodness,  as  it  is  the  overflow  of  a  heart  full  of 
love,  the  free  sally  and  emission  of  soul,  that  is  captivated  and  endeared 
by  kindness.     To  laud  and  magnify  the  Lord  is  the  end  for  which  we 
were  born,  and  the  heaven  for  which  we  were  designed  ;  and  when  we 
are  arrived  to  such  a  vigorous  sense  of  Divine  love  as  the  blessed  inha- 
bitants of  heaven  have  attained,  we  shall  need  no  other  pleasure  or 
enjoyment  to  make  us  for  ever  happy,  but  only  to  sing  eternal  praises 
to  God  and  the  Lamb ;  the  vigorous  relish  of  whose  unspeakable  good- 
ness  to  us  will  so  inflame  our  love,  and  animate  our  gratitude,  that  to 

2 


508  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

eternal  ages  we  shall  never  be  able  to  refrjiin  from  breaking  out  into 
new  songs  of  praise,  and  then  every  new  song  will  create  a  new  plea- 
sure and  every  new  pleasure  create  a  new  song."  {Dr,  Scott,) 


CHAPTER  III. 
The  Duties  we  owe  to  God — The  Lord^s  Day. 

As  we  have  just  been  treating  of  the  public  worship  of  Almighty  God, 
so  we  may  fitly  add  some  remarks  upon  the  consecration  of  one  day  in 
seven  for  that  service,  that  it  may  be  longer  continued  than  on  days  in 
which  the  business  of  life  calls  for  our  exertions,  and  our  minds  be  kept 
free  from  its  distractions. 

The  obligation  of  a  Sabbatical  institution  upon  Christians,  as  well  as 
the  extent  of  it,  have  been  the  subjects  of  much  controversy.  Christian 
Churches  themselves  have  differed ;  and  the  theologians  of  the  same 
Church.  Much  has  been  written  upon  the  subject  on  each  side,  and 
much  research  and  learning  employed,  sometimes  to  darken  a  very 
plain  subject. 

The  circumstance,  that  the  observance  of  a  Sabbath  is  nowhere,  in 
so  many  words,  enjoined  upon  Christians,  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles, 
has  been  assumed  as  the  reason  for  so  great  a  license  of  criticism  and 
argument  as  that  which  has  been  often  indulged  in  to  unsettle  the  strict- 
ness of  the  obligation  of  this  duty.  Its  obligation  has  been  repre- 
sented  as  standing  upon  the  ground  of  inference  only,  and  therefore  of 
human  opinion  ;  and  thus  the  opinion  against  Sabbatical  institutions  has 
been  held  up  as  equally  weighty  with  the  opinion  in  their  favour ;  and 
the  liberty  which  has  been  claimed,  has  been  too  often  hastily  concluded 
to  be  Christian  liberty.  This,  however,  is  travelling  much  too  fast ;  for 
if  the  case  were  as  much  a  matter  of  inference,  as  such  persons  would 
have  it,  it  does  not  follow  that  every  inference  is  alike  good ;  or  that  the 
opposing  inferences  have  an  equal  force  of  truth,  any  more  than  of 
piety. 

The  question  respects  the  will  of  God  as  to  this  particular  point, — 
whether  one  day  in  seven  is  to  be  wholly  devoted  to  rehgion,  exclusive 
of  worldly  business  and  worldly  pleasures?  Now,  there  are  but  two 
ways  in  which  the  will  of  God  can  be  collected  from  his  word ;  either 
by  some  explicit  injunction  upon  all,  or  by  incidental  circumstances.  Let 
us  then  allow  for  a  moment,  that  we  have  no  such  explicit  injunction ; 
yet  we  have  certainly  none  to  the  contrary :  let  us  allow  that  we  have 
only  for  our  guidance  in  inferring  the  will  of  God  in  this  particular,  cer- 
tain circumstances  declarative  of  his  will ;  yet  this  important  conclusion 
is  inevitable,  that  all  such  indicative  circumstances  are  in  favour  of  a 
2 


THIRD.]  '  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  509 

Sabbatical  institution,  and  that  there  is  not  one  which  exhibits  any  thing 
contrary  to  it.  The  seventh  day  was  hallowed  at  the  close  of  the  crea- 
tion ;  its  sanctity  was  afterward  marked  by  the  withholding  of  the 
manna  on  that  day,  and  the  provision  of  a  double  supply  on  the  sixth, 
and  that  ■previous  to  the  giving  of  the  law  from  Sinai :  it  was  then 
made  a  part  of  that  great  epitome  of  religious  and  moral  duty,  which  God 
wrote  with  his  own  finger  on  tables  of  stone  ;  it  was  a  part  of  the  public 
political  law  of  the  only  people  to  whom  Almighty  God  ever  made  him- 
self a  political  head  and  ruler ;  its  observance  is  connected  throughout 
the  prophetic  age  with  the  highest  promises,  its  violations  with  the  severest 
maledictions  ;  it  was  among  the  Jews  in  our  Lord's  time  a  day  of  solemn 
rehgious  assembling,  and  was  so  observed  by  him  ;  when  changed  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  it  was  the  day  on  which  the  first  Christians  assembled ; 
it  was  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  "  the  Lord's  day  ;"  and  we  have  inspir- 
ed authority  to  say,  that,  both  under  the  Old  and  New  Testament  dispen- 
sations,  it  is  used  as  an  expressive  type  of  the  heavenly  and  eternal  rest. 
Now,  against  all  these  circumstances  so  strongly  declarative  of  the  will 
of  God,  as  to  the  observance  of  a  Sabbatical  institution,  what  circum- 
stance or  passage  of  Scripture  can  be  opposed,  as  bearing  upon  it  a  con- 
trary indication  ?  Truly  not  one ;  except  those  passages  in  St.  Paul  in 
which  he  speaks  of  Jewish  Sabbaths,  ^vith  their  Levitical  rites,  and  of  a 
distinction  of  days,  both  of  which  marked  a  weak  or  a  criminal  adherence 
to  the  abolished  ceremonial  dispensation ;  but  which  touch  not  the  Sab- 
bath as  a  branch  of  the  moral  law,  or  as  it  was  changed,  by  the  authority 
of  the  apostles,  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

If,  then,  we  were  left  to  determine  the  point  by  inference  merely,  how 
powerful  is  the  inference  as  to  what  is  the  will  of  God  with  respect  to 
the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  on  the  one  hand,  and  how  totally  unsupported 
is  the  opposite  inference  on  the  other  ! 

It  may  also  be  observed,  that  those  who  will  so  strenuously  insist  upon  the 
absence  of  an  express  command  as  to  the  Sabbath  in  the  writings  of  the 
evangehsts  and  apostles,  as  exphcit  as  that  of  the  decalogue,  assume,  that 
the  will  of  God  is  only  obligatory  when  manifested  in  some  one  mode, 
which  they  judge  to  be  most  fit.  But  this  is  a  monstrous  hypothesis  ; 
for  however  the  will  of  God  may  be  manifested,  if  it  is  with  such  clearness- 
as  to  exclude  all  reasonable  doubt,  it  is  equally  obligatory  as  when  it  as-^ 
sumes  the  formality  of  legal  promulgation.  Thus  the  Bible  is  not  all  in  the 
form  of  express  and  authoritative  command  ;  it  teaches  by  examples,  by 
proverbs,  by  songs,  by  incidental  allusions  and  occurrences ;  and  yet 
is,  throughout,  a  manifestation  of  the  will  of  God  as  to  morals  and  reli- 
gion in  their  various  branches,  and  if  disregarded,  it  will  be  so  at  every 
man's  peril. 

But  strong  as  this  ground  is,  we  quit  it  for  a  still  stronger.  It  is^ 
wholly  a  mistake  that  the  Sabbath,  because  not  re-enacted  with  the 

2 

•V 


510  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  fPART 

formality  of  the  decalogue,  is  not  explicitly  enjoined  upon  Christians, 
and  that  the  testimony  of  Scripture  to  such  an  injunction  is  not  unequi- 
vocal and  irrefragable.  We  shall  soon  prove  that  the  Sabbath  was  ap- 
pointed at  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  consequently  for  all  men,  and 
therefore  for  Christians  ;  since  there  was  never  any  repeal  of  the  origi- 
nal institution.  To  this  we  add,  that  if  the  moral  law  be  the  kw  of 
Christians,  then  is  the  Sabbath  as  exphcitly  enjoined  upon  them  as  upon 
the  Jews.  But  that  the  moral  law  is  our  law,  as  well  as  the  law  of  the 
Jews,  all  but  Antinomians  must  acknowledge  ;  and  few,  we  suppose,  will 
be  inclined  to  run  into  the  fearful  mazes  of  that  error,  in  order  to  support 
lax  notions  as  to  the  obligation  of  the  Sabbath,  into  which,  however,  they 
must  be  plunged,  if  they  deny  the  law  of  the  decalogue  to  be  binding 
upon  us.  That  it  is  so  bound  upon  us,  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  will 
prove  as  well  as  many. 

Our  Lord  declares,  that  he  came  not  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets, but  to  fulfil.  Take  it,  that  by  the  "law,"  he  meant  both  the 
moral  and  the  ceremonial ;  ceremonial  law  could  only  be  fulfilled  in  him, 
by  realizing  its  types  ;  and  moral  law,  by  upholding  its  authority.  For  "  the 
prophets,"  they  admit  of  a  similar  distinction  ;  they  either  enjoin  morality^ 
or  utter  prophecies  of  Christ ;  the  latter  of  which  were  fulfilled  in  the 
sense  of  accomplishment,  the  former  by  being  sanctioned  and  enforced. 
That  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  part  of  the  moral  law,  is  clear 
from  its  being  found  in  the  decalogue,  the  doctrine  of  which  our  Lord 
sums  up  in  the  moral  duties  of  loving  God  and  our  neighbour ;  and  for 
this  reason  the  injunctions  of  the  prophets,  on  the  subject  of  the  Sab- 
bath, are  to  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  their  moral  teaching.  (See  this  stated 
more  at  large,  part  iii,  chap,  i.)  Some  divines  have,  it  is  true,  called 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  a  positive,  and  not  a  moral  precept.  If 
it  were  so,  its  obligation  is  precisely  the  same,  in  all  cases  where  God 
himself  has  not  relaxed  it ;  and  if  a  positive  precept  only,  it  has  surely  a 
special  eminence  given  to  it,  by  being  placed  in  the  list  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments, and  being  capable,  with  them,  of  an  epitome  which  resolves 
them  into  the  love  of  God  and  our  neighbour.  (See  vol.  ii,  p.  5.)  The 
truth  seems  to  be,  that  it  is  a  mixed  precept,  and  not  wholly  positive ;  but 
intimately,  perhaps  essentially,  connected  with  several  moral  principles, 
of  homage  to  God,  and  mercy  to  men  ;  with  the  obligation  of  religious 
worship,  of^ public  religious  worship,  and  of  undistracted  public  worship  : 
and  this  will  account  for  its  collocation  in  the  decalogue  with  the  high- 
est duties  of  religion,  and  the  leading  rules  of  personal  and  social 
morality. 

The  passage  from  our  Lord's  sermon  on  the  mount,  with  its  context, 

is  a  sufficiently  explicit  enforcement  of  the  moral  law,  generally,  upon 

his  followers ;  but  when  he  says,  "  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man," 

he  clearly  refers  to  its  original  institution,  as  a  universal  law,  and  not  to 

2 


THIRD.] 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITL'TES.  511 


its  obligation  upon  the  Jews  only,  in  consequence  of  the  enactments  of 
the  law  of  Moses.  It  "  was  made  for  man"  not  as  he  may  be  a  Jew 
or  a  Christian  ;  but  as  man,  a  creature  bound  to  love,  worship,  and  obey 
his  God  and  Maker,  and  on  his  trial  for  eternity. 

Another  explicit  proof  that  the  law  of  the  ten  commandments,  and, 
consequently,  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  is  obligatory  upon  Christians,  is 
found  in  the  answer  of  the  apostle  to  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification by  faith,  Rom.  iii,  31,  "  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through 
faith?"  which  is  equivalent  to  asking,  Does  Christianity  teach,  that  the  law 
is  no  longer  obligatory  on  Christians,  because  it  teaches  that  no  man  can 
be  justified  by  it  ?  To  this  he  answers  in  the  most  solemn  form  of  expres- 
sion, "  God  forbid ;  yea,  we  establish  the  law."  Now,  the  sense  in  which 
the  apostle  uses  the  term,  "the  law,"  in  this  argument,  is  indubitably 
marked  in  chap,  vii,  7,  "  I  had  not  known  sin  but  by  the  law  ;  for  I  had 
not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet :"  which 
being  a  plain  reference  to  the  tenth  command  of  the  decalogue,  as  plainly 
shows  that  the  decalogue  is  "  the  law"  of  which  he  speaks.  This,  then,  is 
the  law  which  is  "  established"  by  the  Gospel ;  and  this  can  mean  nothing 
else  than  the  establishment  and  confirmation  of  its  authority^  as  the  rule 
of  all  inward  and  outward  holiness.  Whoever,  therefore,  denies  the  ob- 
ligation of  the  Sabbath  on  Christians,  denies  the  obligation  of  the  whole 
decalogue  ;  and  there  is  no  real  medium  between  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  Divine  authority  of  this  sacred  institution,  as  a  universal  law, 
and  that  gross  corruption  of  Christianity,  generally  designated  Antino- 
mianism. 

Nor  is  there  any  force  in  the  dilemma  into  which  the  anti-Sabbatari- 
ans would  push  us,  when  they  argue,  that,  if  the  case  be  so,  then  are 
we  bound  to  the  same  circumstantial  exactitude  of  obedience  as  to  this 
command,  as  to  the  other  precepts  of  the  decalogue ;  and,  therefore, 
that  we  are  bound  to  observe  the  seventh  day,  reckoning  from  Saturday, 
as  the  Sabbath  day.  But,  as  the  command  is  partly  positive,  and  partly 
moral,  it  may  have  circumstances  which  are  capable  of  being  altered  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  moral  principles  on  which  it  rests,  and  the 
moral  ends  which  it  proposes.  Such  circumstances  are  not  indeed  to 
be  judged  of  on  our  own  authority.  We  must  either  have  such  general 
principles  for  our  guidance  as  have  been  revealed  by  God,  and  cannot 
therefore  be  questioned,  or  some  special  authority  from  which  there  can 
be  no  just  appeal.  Now,  though  there  is  not  on  record  any  Divine 
command  issued  to  the  apostles,  to  change  the  Sabbath  from  the  day  on 
which  it  was  held  by  the  Jews,  to  the  first  day  of  the  week ;  yet,  when 
we  see  that  this  was  done  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  that  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbaths  as  not  being  obligatory  upon  Christians,  whil6 
he  yet  contends  that  the  whole  moral  law  is  obligatory  upon  them ; 
the  fair  inference  is,  that  this  change  of  the  day  was  made  by  Divine 

2 


512  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

direction.  It  is  at  least  more  than  inference,  that  the  change  was  made 
under  the  sanction  of  inspired  men  ;  and  those  men,  the  appointed  rulers 
in  the  Church  of  Christ ;  whose  business  it  was  to  "  set  all  things  in  or- 
der,"  which  pertained  to  its  worship  and  moral  government.  We  may- 
rest  well  enough,  therefore,  satisfied  with  this, — that  as  a  Sabbath  is  obU- 
gatory  upon  us,  we  act  under  apostolic  authority  for  observing  it  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  and  thus  commemorate  at  once  the  creation  and 
the  redemption  of  the  world. 

Thus,  even  if  it  were  conceded,  that  the  change  of  the  day  was  made 
by  the  agreement  of  the  apostles,  without  express  directions  from  Christ, 
(which  is  not  probable,)  it  is  certain  that  it  was  not  done  without  express 
authority  confided  to  them  by  Christ ;  but  it  would  not  even  follow  from 
this  change  that  they  did  in  reality  make  any  alteration  in  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath,  either  as  it  stood  at  the  time  of  its  original  institution  at  the  close 
of  the  creation,  or  in  the  decalogue  of  Moses.  The  same  portion  of 
time  which  constituted  the  seventh  day  from  the  creation,  could  not  be 
observed  in  all  parts  of  the  earth ;  and  it  is  not  probable,  therefore,  that 
the  original  law  expresses  more,  than  that  a  seventh  day,  or  one  day 
in  seven,  the  seventh  day  after  six  days  of  labour,  should  be  thus  appro- 
priated, from  whatever  point  the  enumeration  might  set  out,  or  the  heb- 
domadal cycle  begin.  For  if  more  had  been  intended,  then  it  would  have 
been  necessary  to  establish  a  rule  for  the  reckoning  of  days  themselves, 
which  has  been  different  in  different  nations ;  some  reckoning  from  even- 
ing to  evening,  as  the  Jews  now  do ;  others  from  midnight  to  midnight, 
&c.  So  that  those  persons  in  this  country  and  in  America,  who  hold 
their  Sabbath  on  Saturday,  under  the  notion  of  exactly  conforming  to 
the  Old  Testament,  and  yet  calculate  the  days  from  midnight  to  midnight, 
have  no  assurance  at  all  that  they  do  not  desecrate  a  part  of  the  original 
Sabbath,  which  might  begin,  as  the  Jewish  Sabbath  now,  on  Friday- 
evening  ;  and  on  the  contrary,  hallow  a  portion  of  a  common  day,  by 
extending  the  Sabbath  beyond  Saturday  evening.  Even  if  this  were 
ascertained,  the  differences  of  latitude  and  longitude  would  throw  the 
whole  into  disorder;  and  it  is  not  probable  that  a  universal  law  should 
have  been  fettered  with  that  circumstantial  exactness,  which  would  have 
rendered  difficult,  and  sometimes  doubtful,  astronomical  calculations 
necessary  in  order  to  its  being  obeyed  according  to  the  intention  of  the 
Lawgiver.     Accordingly  we  find,  says  Mr.  Holden,  that 

"  In  the  original  institution  it  is  stated  in  general  terms,  that  God 
blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day,  which  must  undoubtedly  imply 
the  sanctity  of  every  seventh  day ;  but  not  that  it  is  to  be  subsequently 
reckoned  from  the  first  demiurgic  day.  Had  this  been  included  in  the 
command  of  the  Almighty,  something,  it  is  probable,  would  have  been 
added  declaratory  of  the  intention ;  whereas  expressions  the  most  unde- 
fined are  employed  ;  not  a  syllable  is  uttered  concerning  the  order  and 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  513 

number  of  the  days ;  and  it  cannot  reasonably  be  disputed  that  the 
command  is  truly  obeyed  by  the  separation  of  every  seventh  day,  from 
common  to  sacred  purposes,  at  whatever  given  time  the  cycle  may  com- 
mence.  The  difference  in  the  mode  of  expression  here  from  that  which 
the  sacred  historian  has  used  in  the  first  chapter,  is  very  remarkable. 
At  the  conclusion  of  each  division  of  the  work  of  creation,  he  says, 
'  The  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day,'  and  so  on  ;  but  at 
the  termination  of  the  whole,  he  merely  calls  it  the  seventh  day  ;  a  di- 
versity of  phrase,  which,  as  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  every  idea  of 
inspiration  to  suppose  it  undesigned,  must  have  been  intended  to  denote 
a  day,  leaving  it  to  each  people  as  to  what  manner  it  is  to  be  reckoned. 
The  term  obviously  imports  the  period  of  the  earth's  rotation  round  its 
axis,  while  it  is  left  undetermined,  whether  it  shall  be  counted  from 
evening  or  morning,  from  noon  or  midnight.  The  terms  of  the  law  are, 
'  Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy.  Six  days  shalt  thou 
labour,  and  do  all  thy  work ;  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord  thy  God. — For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the 
sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day  ;  wherefore  the 
Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and  hallowed  it.'  With  respect  to  time, 
it  is  here  mentioned  in  the  same  indefinite  manner  as  at  its  primeval 
institution,  nothing  more  being  expressly  required  than  to  observe  a  day 
of  sacred  rest  after  every  six  days  of  labour.  The  seventh  day  is  to  be 
kept  holy ;  but  not  a  word  is  said  as  to  what  epoch  the  commencement 
of  the  series  is  to  be  referred ;  nor  could  the  Hebrews  have  determined 
from  the  decalogue  what  day  of  the  week  was  to  be  kept  as  their  Sab- 
bath.  The  precept  is  not.  Remember  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  to 
keep  it  holy,  but '  Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy ;'  and  in 
the  following  explication  of  these  expressions,  it  is  not  said  that  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  is  the  Sabbath,  but  without  restriction,  *  The 
seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God ;'  not  the  seventh  ac- 
cording to  any  particular  method  of  computing  the  septenary  cycle  ;  but, 
in  reference  to  the  six  before  mentioned,  every  seventh  day  in  rotation 
after  six  of  labour."  {Holden  on  the  Sabbath.) 

Thus  that  part  of  the  Jewish  law,  the  decalogue,  which,  on  the  an- 
thority  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  shown  to  be  obligatory  upon 
Christians,  leaves  the  computation  of  the  hebdomadal  cycle  undeter- 
mined ;  and,  after  six  days  of  labour,  enjoins  tl  o  seventh  as  the  Sab- 
bath,  to  which  the  Christian  practice  as  exactly  cc  (forms  as  the  Jewish. 
It  is  not,  however,  left  to  every  individual  to  determine  which  day  should 
be  his  Sabbath,  though  he  should  fulfil  the  law  so  far  as  to  abstract  the 
seventh  part  of  his  time  from  labour.  It  was  ordained  for  worship,  for 
public  worship  ;  and  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  Sabbath  should 
be  uniformly  observed  by  a  whole  community  at  the  same  time.  The 
Divine  Legislator  of  the  Jews  interposed  for  this  end,  by  special  direc- 

VoL.  II.  33 


514  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

tion,  as  to  his  people.  The  first  Sabbath  kept  in  the  wilderness  was 
calculated  from  the  first  day  in  which  the  manna  fell ;  and  with  no  ap- 
parent reference  to  the  creation  of  the  world.  By  apostolic  authority, 
it  is  now  fixed  to  be  held  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  and  thus  one  of 
the  great  ends  for  which  it  was  established,  that  it  should  be  a  day  of 
*'  holy  convocation,"  is  secured. 

The  above  observations  proceed  upon  the  ground,  that  the  Sabbath, 
according  to  the  fair  interpretation  of  the  words  of  Moses,  was  instituted 
upon  the  creation  of  the  world.  But  we  have  had  divines  of  consider- 
able eminence  in  the  English  Church,  who  have  attempted  to  disprove 
this.  The  reason  of  the  zeal  displayed  by  some  of  them  on  this  ques- 
tion may  be  easily  explained. 

All  the  Churches  of  the  reformation  did  not  indeed  agree  in  their 
views  of  the  Sabbath ;  but  the  reformers  of  England  and  Scotland 
generally  adopted  the  strict  and  Scriptural  view ;  and  after  them  the 
Puritans.  The  opponents  of  the  Puritans,  in  their  controversies  with 
them,  and  especially  after  the  restoration,  associated  a  strict  observance 
of  the  Sabbath  with  hypocrisy  and  disaffection  ;  and  no  small  degree 
of  ingenuity  and  learning  was  employed  to  prove,  that,  in  the  intervals 
of  public  worship,  pleasure  or  business  might  be  lawfully  pursued  ;  and 
that  this  Christian  festival  stands  on  entirely  different  grounds  from  that 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  The  appointment  of  a  Sabbath  for  man,  at  the 
close  of  the  creation,  was  unfriendly  to  this  notion  ;  and  an  effort  there- 
fore was  made  to  explain  away  the  testimony  of  Moses  in  the  book  of 
Genesis,  by  alleging  that  the  Sabbath  is  there  mentioned  by  prolepsis  or 
anticipation.  Of  the  arguments  of  this  class  of  divines,  Paley  availed 
himself  in  his  "  Moral  Philosophy,"  and  has  become  the  most  popular 
authority  on  this  side  of  the  question. 

Paley's  argument  is  well  summed  up,  and  satisfactorily  answered,  in 
the  able  work  which  has  been  above  quoted. 

"  Among  those  who  have  held  that  the  Pentateuchal  record,  above 
cited,  is  proleptical,  and  that  the  Sabbath  is  to  be  considered  a  part  of 
the  peculiar  laws  of  the  Jewish  polity,  no  one  has  displayed  more  ability 
than  Dr.  Paley.  Others  on  the  same  side  have  exhibited  far  more  ex- 
tensive learning,  and  have  exercised  much  more  patient  research ;  but 
for  acuteness  of  intellect,  for  coolness  of  judgment,  and  a  habit  of  perspi- 
cacious reasoning,  he  has  been  rarely,  if  ever,  excelled.  The  arguments 
which  he  has  approved,  must  be  allowed  to  be  the  chief  strength  of  the 
cause ;  and,  as  he  is  at  once  the  most  judicious  and  most  popular  of  its 
advocates,  all  that  he  has  advanced  demands  a  careful  and  candid  ex- 
amination. The  doctrine  which  he  maintains  is,  that  the  Sabbath  was 
not  instituted  at  the  creation;  that  it  was  designed  for  the  Jews  only; 
that  the  assemhling  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  for  the  purpose  of 
public  worship,  is  a  law  of  Christianity,  of  Divine  appointment ;  but  that 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  515 

the  resting  on  it  longer  than  is  necessary  for  attendance  on  these 
assemblies,  is  an  ordinance  of  human  institution ;  binding,  nevertheless, 
upon  the  conscience  of  every  individual  of  a  country  in  which  a  weekly 
Sabbath  is  established,  for  the  sake  of  the  beneficial  purposes  which  the 
public  and  regular  observance  of  it  promotes,  and  recommended  per- 
haps, in  some  degree,  to  the  Divine  approbation,  by  the  resemblance  it 
bears  to  what  God  was  pleased  to  make  a  solemn  part  of  the  law  which 
he  delivered  to  the  people  of  Israel,  and  by  its  subserviency  to  many  of 
the  same  uses.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  this  very  able  writer  in  his 
Moral  and  Political  Philosophy ;  a  doctrine  which  places  the  Sabbath 
on  the  footing  of  civil  laws,  recommended  by  their  expediency,  and 
which,  being  sanctioned  by  so  high  an  authority,  has  probably  given 
great  encouragement  to  the  lax  notions  concerning  the  Sabbath  which 
unhappily  prevail. 

"  Dr.  Paley's  principal  argument  is,  that  the  first  institution  of  the 
Sabbath  took  place  during  the  sojourning  of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness. 
Upon  the  complaint  of  the  people  for  want  of  food,  God  was  pleased  to 
provide  for  their  relief  by  a  miraculous  supply  of  manna,  which  was 
found  every  morning  upon  the  ground  about  the  camp  :  '  And  they 
gathered  it  every  morning,  every  man  according  to  his  eating ;  and  when 
the  sun  waxed  hot,  it  melted.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  on  the  sixth 
day  they  gathered  twice  as  much  bread,  two  omers  for  one  man ;  and 
all  the  rulers  of  the  cono-recration  came  and  told  Moses.  And  he  said 
unto  them.  This  is  that  which  the  Lord  hath  said.  To-morrow  is  the  rest 
of  the  holy  Sabbath  unto  the  Lord  :  bake  that  which  ye  will  bake  to-day, 
and  seethe  that  ye  will  seethe ;  and  that  which  remaineth  over  lay  up 
for  you,  to  be  kept  until  the  morning.  And  they  laid  it  up  till  the 
morning,  as  Moses  bade  ;  atid  it  did  not  stink,  (as  it  had  done  before, 
when  some  of  them  left  it  till  the  morning,)  neither  was  there  any  worm 
therein.  And  Moses  said.  Eat  that  to-day  ;  for  to-day  is  a  Sabbath  unto 
the  Lord ;  to-day  ye  shall  not  find  it  in  the  field.  Six  days  ye  shall 
gather  it,  but  on  the  seventh  day,  which  is  the  Sabbath,  in  it  there  shall 
be  none.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  there  went  out  some  of  the  peo- 
ple on  the  seventh  day  for  to  gather,  and  they  found  none.  And  the 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,  How  long  refuse  ye  to  keep  my  commandments, 
and  my  laws  ?  See,  for  that  the  Lord  hath  given  you  the  Sabbath,  there- 
fore he  giveth  you  on  the  sixth  day  the  bread  of  two  dnys ;  abide  ye 
every  man  in  his  place ;  let  no  man  go  out  of  his  place  on  the  seventh 
day.     So  the  people  rested  on  the  seventh  day.' 

"  From  this  passage.  Dr.  Paley  infers  that  the  Sabbath  was  first  insti- 
tuted  in  the  wilderness ;  but  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  misrepresent- 
ing his  argument,  I  will  quote  his  own  words  :  '  Now,  in  my  opinion, 
the  transaction  in  the  wilderness  above  recited,  was  the  first  actual  in- 
stitution  of  the  Sabbath.     For  if  the  Sabbath  had  been  instituted  at  the 

2 


516  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  PART 

time  of  the  creation,  as  the  words  in  Genesis  may  seem  at  first  sight  to 
import ;  and  if  it  had  been  observed  all  along  from  that  time  to  the  de- 
parture of  the  Jews  out  of  Egypt,  a  period  of  about  two  thousand  five 
hundred  years  ;  it  appears  unaccountable  that  no  mention  of  it,  no  occa- 
sion of  even  the  obscurest  allusion  to  it,  should  occur,  either  in  the 
general  history  of  the  world  before  the  call  of  Abraham,  which  contains, 
we  admit,  only  a  few  memoirs  of  its  early  ages,  and  those  extremely 
abridged ;  or,  which  is  more  to  be  wondered  at,  in  that  of  the  lives  of 
the  first  three  Jewish  patriarchs,  which,  in  many  parts  of  the  account, 
is  sufficiently  circumstantial  and  domestic.  Nor  is  there,  in  the  passage 
above  quoted  from  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Exodus,  any  intimation  that 
the  Sabbath,  when  appointed  to  be  observed,  was  only  the  revival  of  an 
ancient,  institution,  which  had  been  neglected,  forgotten,  or  suspended  ; 
nor  is  any  such  neglect  imputed  either  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  old  world, 
or  to  any  part  of  the  family  of  Noah  ;  nor,  lastly,  is  any  permission 
recorded  to  dispense  with  the  institution  during  the  captivity  of  the  Jews 
in  Egypt,  or  on  any  other  public  emergency.' 

"  As  to  the  first  part  of  this  reasoning,  if  it  were  granted  that 
in  the  history  of  the  patriarchal  ages  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Sab- 
bath, nor  even  the  obscurest  allusion  to  it,  it  would  be  unfair  to  con- 
clude that  it  was  not  appointed  previous  to  the  departure  of  the  children 
of  Israel  from  Egypt.  If  instituted  at  the  creation,  the  memory  of  it 
might  have  been  forgotten  in  the  lapse  of  time,  and  the  growing  cor- 
ruption of  the  world ;  or,  what  is  more  probable,  it  might  have  been 
observed  by  the  patriarchs,  though  no  mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  nar- 
rative of  their  lives,  which,  however  circumstantial  in  some  particulars, 
is,  upon  the  whole,  very  brief  and  compendious.  Thre  are  omissions  in 
the  sacred  history  much  more  extraordinary.  Excepting  Jacob's  sup- 
plication at  Bethel,  scarcely  a  single  allusion  to  prayer  is  to  be  found  in 
all  the  Pentateuch  ;  yet  considering  the  eminent  piety  of  the  worthies 
recorded  in  it,  we  cannot  doubt  the  frequency  of  their  devotional  exer- 
cises. Circumcision  being  the  sign  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham, 
was  beyond  all  question  punctually  observed  by  the  Israelites,  yet,  from 
their  settlement  in  Canaan,  no  particular  instance  is  recorded  of  it  till 
the  circumcision  of  Christ,  comprehending  a  period  of  about  one  thou- 
sand five  hundred  years.  No  express  mention  of  the  Sabbath  occurs  in 
the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  the  first  and  second  of  Samuel,  or 
the  first  of  Kings,  though  it  was,  doubtless,  regularly  observed  all  the 
time  included  in  these  histories.  In  the  second  book  of  Kings,  and  the 
first  and  second  of  Chronicles,  it  is  mentioned  only  twelve  times,  and 
some  of  them  are  merely  repetitions  of  the  same  instance.  If  the  Sab- 
bath  is  so  seldom  spoken  of  in  this  long  historical  series,  it  can  be  nothing 
wonderful  if  it  should  not  be  mentioned  in  the  summary  account  of  the 
patriarchal  ages. 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  517 

"  But  though  the  Sabbath  is  not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  history 
of  the  antediluvian  and  patriarchal  ages,  the  observance  of  it  seems 
to  be  intimated  by  the  division  of  time  into  weeks.  In  relating  the 
catastrophe  of  the  flood,  the  historian  informs  us,  that  Noah,  at  the  end 
of  forty  days  opened  the  window  of  the  ark  ;  '  and  he  stayed  yet  other 
seven  days,  and  again  he  sent  forth  the  dove  out  of  the  ark ;  and  the 
dove  came  in  to  him  in  the  evening,  and,  lo,  in  her  mouth  was  an  olive 
leaf,  plucked  off.  So  Noah  knew  that  the  waters  were  abated  from  oft' 
the  earth.  And  he  stayed  yet  other  seven  days,  and  sent  forth  the 
dove,  which  returned  not  again  unto  him  any  more.'  The  term  '  week* 
is  used  by  Laban  in  reference  to  the  nuptials  of  Leah,  when  he  says, 
'  Fulfil  her  week,  and  we  will  give  thee  this  also,  for  the  service  which 
thou  shalt  serve  with  me  yet  seven  other  years.'  A  week  of  days  is 
here  plainly  signified,  the  same  portion  of  time  which,  in  succeeding 
ages,  was  set  apart  for  nuptial  festivities,  as  appears  from  the  book  of 
Esther,  where  the  marriage  feast  of  Vashti  lasted  seven  days,  and  more 
particularly  from  the  account  of  Samson's  m.arriage  feast.  Joseph  and 
his  brethren  mourned  for  their  father  Jacob  seven  days. 

"  That  the  computation  of  time  by  weeks  obtained  from  the  most 
remote  antiquity,  appears  from  the  traditionary  and  written  records  of 
all  nations,  the  numerous  and  undeniable  testimonies  of  which  have 
been  so  often  collected  and  displayed,  that  it  would  be  worse  than  useless 
to  repeat  them. 

"  Combining  all  these  testimonies  together,  they  fully  estabhsh  the 
primitive  custom  of  measuring  time  by  the  division  of  weeks  ;  and  pre- 
vailing as  it  did  among  nations  separated  by  distance,  having  no  nfUtual 
intercourse,  and  wholly  distinct  in  manners,  it  must  have  originated 
from  one  common  source,  which  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed  any 
other  than  the  memory  of  the  creation  preserved  in  the  Noahic  family, 
and  handed  down  to  their  posterities.  The  computation  by  days, 
months,  and  years,  arises  from  obvious  causes,  the  revolution  of  the 
moon,  and  the  annual  and  diurnal  revolutions  of  the  sun ;  but  the  divi- 
sion of  time  by  periods  of  seven  days,  has  no  foundation  in  any  natural 
or  visible  septenary  change ;  it  must,  therefore,  have  originated  from 
some  positive  appointment,  or  some  tradition  anterior  to  the  dispersion  of 
mankind,  which  cannot  well  be  any  other  than  the  memory  of  the  crea- 
tion and  primeval  blessing  of  the  seventh  day. 

*'  Dr.  Paley's  next  argument  is,  that  '  there  is  not  in  the  sixteenth 
chapter  of  Exodus  any  intimation  that  the  Sabbath,  when  appointed  to 
be  observed,  was  only  the  revival  of  an  ancient  institution  which  had 
been  neglected,  forgotten,  or  suspended.'  The  contrary,  however, 
seems  the  more  natural  inference  from  the  narrative.  It  is  mentioned 
exactly  in  the  way  an  historian  would,  who  had  occasion  to  speak  of  a 
well-knovm  institution.     For  instance,  when  the  people  were  astonished 

2 


519  THEOIiOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

at  Ihe  double  supply  of  manna  on  the  sixth  day,  Moses  observes,  *  This 
is  that  which  the  Lord  hath  said,  To-morrow  is  the  rest  of  the  holy 
Sabbath  unto  the  Lord ;'  which,  as  far  as  we  know,  was  never  said  pre- 
viously to  this  transaction,  but  at  the  close  of  the  creation.      This, 
surely,  is  the  language  of  a  man  referring  to  a  matter  with  which  the 
people  were  already  acquainted,  and  recalling  it  to  their  remembrance. 
In  the  fifth  verse,  God  promises  on  the  sixth  day  twice  as  much  as  they 
gather  daily.      For  this  no  reason  is  given,  which  seems  to  imply  that 
it  was  already  known  to  the  children  of  Israel.     Such  a  promise,  with- 
out some  cause  being  assigned  for  so  extraordinary  a   circumstance, 
would  have  been  strange  indeed  ;  and  if  the  reason  had  been,  that  the 
seventh  day  was  now  for  the  first  time  to  be  appointed  a  festival,  in 
wliich  no  work  was  to  be  done,  would  not  the  author  have  stated  this  cir- 
cumstance 1     Again,  it  is  said,  '  Six  days  ye  shall  gather  it ;  but  on  the 
seventh  day,  which  is  the  Sabbath,  in  it  there  shall  be  none ;'  and  '  for 
that  the  Lord  hath  given  you  the  Sabbath,  therefore  he  giveth  you  on 
the  sixth  day  the  bread  of  two  days.'     Here  the  Sabbath  is  spoken  of 
as  an  ordinance  with  which  the  people  were  famihar.     A  double  quan- 
tity of  manna  was  given  on  the  sixth  day,  because  the  following  day, 
as  they  well  knew,  was  the  Sabbath  in  which  God  rested   from  his 
work,  and  which  was  to  be  kept  as  a  day  of  rest,  and  holy  to  the  Lord. 
It  is  likewise  mentioned  incidentally,  as  it  were,  in  the  recital  of  the 
miraculous  supply  of  manna,  without  any  notice  of  its  being  enjoined 
upon  that  occasion  for  the  first  time ;    which  would  be  a  very  sur- 
prising  circumstance,  had  it  been   the  original  estabUshment  of  the 
Sabbath.     In  short,  the  entire  phraseology  in  the  account  of  this  re- 
markable transaction  accords  with  the  supposition,  and  with  it  alone, 
that  the  Sabbath  had  been  long  established,  and  was  well  known  to  the 
Israelites. 

"  That  no  neglect  of  the  Sabbath  is  '  imputed  either  to  the  inhabitants 
gf  the  old  world,  or  to  any  of  the  family  of  Noah,'  is  very  true  ;  but,  so 
far  from  there  being  any  proof  of  such  negligence,  there  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  we  have  seen,  much  reason  for  believing  that  it  was  duly 
observed  by  the  pious  Sethites  of  the  old  world,  and  after  the  deluge,  by 
the  virtuous  line  of  Shem.  True,  likewise,  it  is,  that  there  is  not  '  any 
permission  recorded  to  dispense  with  the  institution  during  the  captivity 
of  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  or  on  any  other  public  emergency.'  But  where 
is  the  evidence  that  such  a  permission  would  be  consistent  with  the 
Divine  wisdom  ?  And  if  not,  none  such  would  either  be  given  or 
recorded.  At  any  rate,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  silence  of  Scripture 
concerning  such  a  circumstance,  can  furnish  an  argument  in  vindication 
of  the  opinion,  that  the  Sabbath  was  first  appointed  in  the  wilderness. — 
To  allege  it  for  this  purpose,  is  just  as  inconclusive  as  it  would  be  to 
argue  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  subsequent  to  the  return  of  the 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  519 

Jews  from  Babylonia,  because  neither  the  observance  of  it,  nor  any 
permission  to  dispense  with  it,  during  the  captivity,  is  recorded  in 
Scripture. 

"  The  passage  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  is  next  adduced  by 
Dr.  Paley,  and  he  pronounces  it  not  inconsistent  with  his  opinion  ;  '  for 
as  the  seventh  day  was  erected  into  a  Sabbath,  on  account  of  God's 
resting  upon  that  day  from  the  work  of  creation,  it  was  natural  enough 
in  the  historian,  when  he  had  related  the  history  of  the  creation,  and  of 
God's  ceasing  from  it  on  the  seventh  day,  to  add,  *  and  God  blessed  the 
seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it,  because  that  on  it  he  had  rested  from  all 
his  work  which  God  had  created  and  made ;'  although  the  blessing  and 
sanctification,  that  is,  the  religious  distinction  and  appropriation  of  that 
day,  were  not  actually  made  till  many  ages  afterward.  The  words  do 
not  assert,  that  God  then  '  blessed'  and  *  sanctified'  the  seventh  day, 
but  that  he  blessed  and  sanctified  it  for  that  reason ;  and  if  any 
ask,  why  the  Sabbath,  or  sanctification  of  the  seventh  da)^,  was  then 
mentioned,  if  it  were  not  then  appointed,  the  answer  is  at  hand,  the 
order  of  connection,  and  not  of  time,  introduced  the  mention  of  the 
Sabbath  in  the  history  of  the  subject  which  it  was  ordained  to 
commemorate.' 

"  That  the  Hebrew  historian,  in  the  passage  here  referred  to,  uses  a 
prolepsis  or  anticipation,  and  alludes  to  the  Mosaical  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  is  maintained  by  some  of  the  ancient  fathers,  by  Waehner, 
Heidegger,  Beausobre,  by  Le  Clerc,  Rosenmuller,  Geddes,  Dawson, 
and  other  commentators,  and  by  the  general  stream  of  those  writers  who 
regard  the  Sabbath  as  peculiar  to  the  Jews.  Yet  this  opinion  is  built 
upon  the  assumption,  that  the  book  of  Genesis  was  not  written  till  after 
the  giving  of  the  law,  which  may  be  the  fact,  but  of  which  most  unques- 
tionably  there  is  no  proof.  But  waiving  this  consideration,  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  conceive  a  greater  violence  to  the  sacred  text,  than  is  offered 
by  this  interpretation.  It  attributes  to  the  inspired  author  the  absurd 
assertion,  that  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  works  which 
he  had  made,  and  therefore  about  two  thousand  five  hundred  years 
after,  God  blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day.  It  may  be  as  well 
imagined  that  God  had  finished  his  work  on  the  seventh  day,  but  rested 
on  some  other  seventh  day,  as  that  he  rested  the  day  following  the 
work  of  creation,  and  afterward  blessed  and  sanctified  another.  Not 
the  slightest  evidence  appears  for  believing  that  Moses  followed  '  the 
order  of  connection,  and  not  of  time,'  for  no  reasonable  motive  can  be 
assigned  for  then  introducing  the  mention  of  it,  if  it  was  not  then 
appointed.  The  design  of  the  sacred  historian  clearly  is,  to  give  a 
faithful  account  of  the  origin  of  the  world ;  and  both  the  resting  on  the 
seventh  day,  and  the  blessing  it,  have  too  close  a  connection  to  be  sepa^ 
rated  :  if  the  one  took  place  immediately  after  the  work  of  creation  waai 

2 


520  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

concluded,  so  did  the  other.  To  the  account  of  the  production  of  the 
universe,  the  whole  narrative  is  confined ;  there  is  no  intimation  of 
subsequent  events,  nor  the  most  distant  allusion  to  Jewish  ceremo- 
nies ;  and  it  would  be  most  astonishing  if  the  writer  deserted  his  grand 
object  to  mention  one  of  the  Hebrew  ordinances  which  was  not  appointed 
till  ages  afterward. 

"  But  according  to  Dr.  Geddes,  the  opinion  of  a  prolepsis  derives 
some  confirmation  from  the  original  Hebrew,  which  he  renders,  *  On 
the  sixth  day  God  completed  all  the  work  which  he  had  to  do  ;  and  on 
the  SEVENTH  day,  ceased  froni  doing  any  of  his  works.  God,  therefore, 
blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  made  it  holy,  because  on  it  he  ceased 
from  all  his  works,  which  he  had  ordained  to  do.'  This  version,  he 
says,  is  '  in  the  supposition  that  the  writer  refers  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath  :' 
of  course  it  was  designedly  adapted  to  an  hypothesis  ;  but,  notwithstand- 
ing this  suspicious  circumstance,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  how  it  dif- 
fers  in  sense  from  the  received  translation,  as  it  leaves  the  question 
entirely  undecided  when  this  blessing  and  sanctification  took  place. — 
The  proposed  version,  however,  is  opposed  by  those  in  the  Polyglott, 
and  by  the  generality  of  translators,  who  render  the  particle  vau  at  the 
beginning  of  the  third  verse,  as  a  copulative,  not  as  an  illative ;  and 
it  is  surprising  how  a  sound  Hebrew  scholar  can  translate  it  other- 
wise.  In  short,  nothing  can  be  more  violent  and  unnatural  than  the 
proleptical  interpretation ;  and  if  we  add,  that  it  rests  upon  the 
unproved  assumption,  that  the  record  in  question  was  written  after 
the  delivery  of  the  law,  it  must  appear  so  devoid  of  critical  support, 
as  not  to  require  a  moment's  hesitation  in  rejecting  it."  {Holden  on  the 
Sabbath.) 

So  satisfactorily  does  it  appear  that  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  is 
historically  narrated  in  Genesis  :  and  it  follows  from  thence,  that  the  law 
of  the  Sabbath  is  universal,  and  not  peculiar  to  the  Jews.  God  blessed 
and  sanctified  it,  not  certainly  for  himself,  but  for  his  creatures ;  that  it 
might  be  a  day  of  special  blessing  to  them,  and  be  set  apart,  not  only 
from  unholy  acts,  for  they  are  forbidden  on  every  day ;  but  from  com- 
mon uses.  It  was  thus  stamped  with  a  hallowed  character  from  the 
commencement,  and  in  v/orks  of  a  hallowed  character  ought  it  therefore 
to  be  employed. 

The  obligation  of  a  Sabbatical  observance  upon  Christians  being  thus 
established,  the  inquiry  which  naturally  follows,  is,  In  what  manner  is 
this  great  festival,  at  once  so  ancient  and  so  venerable,  and  intended  to 
commemorate  events  so  illustrious  and  so  important  to  mankind,  to 
be  celebrated  ?  Many  have  spoken  of  the  difficulty  of  settling  rules  of 
this  kind ;  but  this  will  ordinarily  vanish,  if  we  consent  to  be  guided 
fully  by  the  principles  of  Scripture. 

We  allow  that  it  requires  judgment,  and  prudence,  and  charity,  and, 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  521 

above  all,  a  mind  well  disposed  to  the  spiritual  employment  of  the  Sab- 
bath,  to  make  a  right  apphcation  of  the  law.  But  this  is  the  case  with 
other  precepts  also ;  such,  for  instance,  as  the  loving  our  neighbour  as 
ourselves:  with  respect  to  which  we  seldom  hear  any  complaint  of 
difficulty  in  the  application.  But,  even  if  some  want  of  special  direc- 
tion should  be  felt,  this  can  only  affect  minor  details ;  and  probably  the 
matter  has  been  so  left  by  the  Lawgiver,  to  "  try  us,  and  prove  us,  and 
to  know  what  is  in  our  heart."  Something  may  have  been  reserved,  in 
this  case,  for  the  exercise  of  spontaneous  obedience  ;  for  that  generous 
construction  of  the  precept  which  will  be  dictated  by  devotion  and  gra- 
titude ;  and  for  the  operation  of  a  feeling  of  indignant  shame,  that  the 
only  day  which  God  has  reserved  to  himself,  should  be  grudged  to  him, 
and  trenched  upon  by  every  petty  excuse  of  convenience,  interest,  or 
sloth,  and  pared  down,  and  negociated  for,  in  the  spirit  of  one  who 
seeks  to  overreach  another.  Of  this  we  may  be  assured,  that  he  who 
is  most  anxious  to  find  exceptions  to  the  general  rule,  will,  in  most  cases, 
be  a  defaulter  upon  even  his  own  estimate  of  the  general  duty. 

The  only  real  difficulties  with  which  men  have  entangled  themselves, 
have  arisen  from  the  want  of  clear  and  decided  views  of  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  as  it  is  a  matter  of  express  revelation.  There  are  two  extremes, 
either  of  which  must  be  fertile  of  perplexity.  The  first  is,  to  regard  the 
Sabbath  as  a  prudential  institution,  adopted  by  the  primitive  Church, 
and  resting  upon  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authority ;  a  notion  which  has 
been  above  refuted.  For  if  this  theory  be  adopted,  it  is  impossible  to 
find  satisfactory  rules,  either  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  applicable 
to  the  subject ;  and  we  may  therefore  cease  to  wonder  at  that  variety 
of  opinions,  and  those  vacillations  between  duty  and  license,  which  have 
been  found  in  different  Churches,  and  among  their  theological  writers. 
The  difficulty  of  establishing  any  rule  at  all,  to  which  conscience  is 
strictly  amenable,  is  then  evident,  and  indeed  entirely  insuperable ;  and 
men  in  vain  attempt  to  make  a  partial  Sabbath  by  their  own  authority, 
when  they  reject  "  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made."  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  proper  distinction  is  not  preserved  between  the  moral  law 
of  the  Jews,  which  re-enacts  the  still  more  ancient  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  (a  law  we  have  seen  to  be  obligatory  upon  all  Christians,  to 
the  end  of  time,)  and  the  political  and  ceremonial  law  of  that  people, 
which  contains  particular  rules  as  to  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath ; 
fixing  both  the  day  on  which  it  was  to  be  held,  viz.  the  seventh  of  the 
week,  and  issuing  certain  prohibitions  not  applicable  to  all  people  ; 
which  branch  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  brought  to  an  end  by  Christ, — 
difficulties  will  arise  from  this  quarter.  One  difficulty  will  respect  the 
day ;  another  the  hour  of  the  diurnal  circle  from  which  the  Sabbath 
must  commence.  Other  difficulties  will  arise  from  the  inconvenience 
or  impossibihty  of  accommodating  the  Judaical  precepts  to  countries 


522  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  maimers  totally  dissimilar ;  and  others,  from  the  degree  of  civil 
delinquency  and  punitiveness  with  which  violations  of  the  Sabbath  ought 
to  be  marked  in  a  Christian  state.  The  kindling  of  fires,  for  instance, 
in  their  dwellings  was  forbidden  to  the  Jews ;  but  for  extending  this  to 
harsher  climates  there  is  no  authority.  This  rule  would  make  the 
Sabbath  a  day  of  bodily  suffering,  and,  in  some  cases,  of  danger  to 
health,  which  is  inconsistent  with  that  merciful  and  festival  character 
which  the  Sabbath  was  designed  every  where  to  bear.  The  same 
observation  may  apply  to  the  cooking  of  victuals,  which  was  also  pro- 
hibited  to  the  Jews  by  express  command.  To  the  gathering  of  sticks 
on  the  Sabbath  the  penalty  of  death  was  assigned,  on  one  occasion,  for 
reasons  probably  arising  out  of  the  theocratical  government  of  the  Jews  ; 
but  surely  this  is  no  precedent  for  making  the  violation  of  the  Sabbath 
a  capital  crime  in  the  code  of  a  Christian  country. 

Between  the  decalogue,  and  the  political  and  ceremonial  laws  which 
followed,  there  is  a  marked  distinction.  They  were  given  at  two  differ- 
ent times,  and  in  a  different  manner;  and,  above  all,  the  former  is 
referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  as  of  perpetual  obligation  ;  the  other 
as  peculiar,  and  as  abolished  by  Christ.  It  does  not  follow,  however, 
from  this,  that  those  precepts  in  the  Levitical  code,  which  relate  to  the 
Sabbath,  are  of  no  use  to  us.  They  show  us  how  the  general  law  was 
carried  into  its  detail  of  application  by  the  great  Legislator,  who  conde- 
scended to  be  at  once  a  civil  and  an  ecclesiastical  Governor  of  a  chosen 
people  ;  and  though  they  are  not  in  all  respects  binding  upon  us,  in  their 
full  form,  they  all  embody  general  interpretations  of  the  fourth  command 
of  the  decalogue,  to  which,  as  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  a  people 
otherwise  circumstanced,  respect  is  reverently  and  devoutly  to  be  had. 
The  prohibition  to  buy  and  sell  on  the  Sabbath  is  as  applicable  to  us  as 
to  the  Jews ;  so  is  that  against  travelling  on  the  Sabbath,  except  for 
purposes  of  religion,  which  was  allowed  to  them  also.  If  we  may  law- 
fully kindle  fires  in  our  dwellings,  yet  we  may  learn  from  the  law  pecu- 
liar to  the  Jews,  to  keep  domestic  services  under  restraint ;  if  we  may 
cook  victuals  for  necessity  and  comfort,  we  are  to  be  restrained  from 
feasting ;  if  violations  of  the  Sabbath  are  not  to  be  made  capital  crimes 
by  Christian  governors,  the  enforcement  of  a  decent  external  observance 
of  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  lawful  use  of  power,  and  a  part  of  the 
duty  of  a  Christian  magistrate. 

But  the  rules  by  which  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  clearly  ex- 
plained, will  be  found  in  abundant  copiousness  and  evidence  in  the  ori- 
ginal command  ;  in  the  decalogue  ;  in  incidental  passages  of  Scripture, 
which  refer  not  so  much  to  the  political  law  of  the  Jews,  as  to  the  uni- 
versal moral  code ;  and  in  the  discourses  and  acts  of  Christ,  and  his 
apostles :  so  that,  independent  of  the  Levitical  code,  we  have  abundant 
guidance.  It  is  a  day  of  rest  from  worldly  pursuits ;  a  day  sanctified, 
2 


THIRD.  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  523 

that  is,  set  apart  for  holy  uses,  which  are  the  proper  and  the  only  lawful 
occupations  of  the  day  ;  it  is  a  day  of  public  worship,  or,  as  it  is  ex- 
pressed  in  the  Mosaic  law,  "  of  holy  convocation,"  or  assembly  ; — a  day 
for  the  exercise  of  mercy  to  man  and  beast ; — a  day  for  the  devout  com- 
memoration, by  religious  acts  and  meditations,  of  the  creation  and 
redemption  of  the  world ;  and,  consequently,  for  the  cultivation  of  that 
spirit  which  is  suitable  to  such  exercises,  by  laying  aside  all  worldly 
cares  and  pleasures ;  to  which  holy  exercises  there  is  to  be  a  full  appro- 
priation of  the  seventh  part  of  our  time ;  necessary  sleep,  and  engage- 
ments of  real  necessity,  as  explained  by  our  Saviour,  only  being 
excluded. 

Works  of  charity  and  mercy  were  not  excluded  by  the  rigour  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  much  less  by  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  rule  of 
doing  good  on  the  Sabbath  day  has,  however,  sometimes  been  inter- 
preted whh  too  much  laxity,  without  considering  that  such  acts  form  no 
part  of  the  reason  for  which  that  day  was  sanctified,  and  that  they  are 
therefore  to  be  grounded  upon  the  necessity  of  immediate  exertion. 
The  secularity  connected  with  certain  pubhc  charities  has  often  been 
pushed  beyond  this  rule  of  necessity,  and  as  such  has  become  unlawful. 

The  reason  generally  given  for  this,  is,  that  men  cannot  be  found  to 
give  time  on  the  week  day  to  the  management  of  such  charities :  and 
they  will  never  be  found,  while  the  rule  is  brought  down  to  convenience. 
Men's  principles  are  to  be  raised,  and  not  the  command  lowered.  And 
when  ministers  perseveringly  do  their  duty,  and  but  a  few  conscientious 
persons  support  them,  the  whole  will  be  found  practicable  and  easy. 
Charities  are  pressed  either  upon  our  feelings  or  our  interests,  and 
sometimes  on  both ;  and  when  they  become  really  urgent,  time  will  be 
found  for  their  management,  without  "  robbing  God,"  and  laying  down 
that  most  debasing  of  all  principles,  that  our  sacrifices  are  to  cost  us 
nothing.  The  teaching  of  writing  in  Sunday  schools  has  been  pleaded 
for  on  the  same  assumed  ground  of  necessity  ;  but  in  all  well  and  reli- 
giously conducted  institutions  of  this  kind  it  has  been  found  quite  prac- 
ticable to  accomplish  the  object  in  a  lawful  manner ;  and  even  if  it  had 
not,  there  was  no  obligation  binding  as  to  that  practice,  equal  to  that 
which  binds  us  to  obey  the  law  of  God.  It  is  a  work  which  comes  not 
under  any  of  our  Lord's  exceptions  :  it  may  be  a  benevolent  thing ;  but  it 
has  in  it  no  character  o^  mercy,  either  to  the  bodies  or  to  the  souls  of  men. 

As  to  amusements  and  recreations,  which,  when  "  innocent,"  that  is, 
we  suppose,  not  "  immoral,"  are  sometimes  pleaded  for,  by  persons  who 
advocate  the  serious  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  but  a  few  words  are 
necessary.  If  to  public  worship  we  are  to  add  a  more  than  ordinary 
attention  to  the  duties  of  the  family  and  the  closet,  which  all  such  per- 
sons allow,  then  there  is  little  time  for  recreation  and  amusement ;  and 
if  there  were,  the  heart  which  is  truly  impressed  with  duties  so  sacred, 

2 


524  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  has  entered  into  their  spirit,  can  have  no  reUsh  for  them.  Against 
every  temptation  of  this  kind,  the  words  of  the  pious  Archbishop  Dawes 
may  serve  as  a  salutary  admonition  : — 

"  Dost  thou  require  of  me,  O  Lord,  but  one  day  in  seven  for  thy  more 
especial  service,  when  as  all  my  times,  all  my  days,  are  thy  due  tribute  ; 
and  shall  I  grudge  thee  that  one  day  ?  Have  I  but  one  day  in  the  week, 
a  pecuhar  season  of  nurturing  and  training  up  my  soul  for  heavenly 
happiness,  and  shall  I  think  the  whole  of  this  too  much,  and  judge  my 
duties  at  an  end,  when  the  public  offices  of  the  Church  are  only  ended  ? 
Ah  !  where,  in  such  a  case,  is  my  zeal,  my  sincerity,  my  constancy,  and 
perseverance  of  holy  obedience  ?  Where  my  love  unto,  my  delight  and 
relish  in,  pious  performances?  Would  those  that  are  thus  but  half 
Christians  be  content  to  be  half  saved  ?  Would  those  who  are  thus 
not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  be  willing  to  be  utterly  excluded 
thence  for  arriving  no  nearer  to  a  due  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  ? 
Am  I  so  afraid  of  sabbatizing  with  the  Jews,  that  I  carelessly  omit 
keeping  the  day  as  a  good  Christian  ?  Where  can  be  the  harm  of  over- 
doing in  God's  worship,  suppose  I  could  overdo  ?  But  when  my  Saviour 
has  told  me,  after  I  have  done  all,  I  am  still  an  unprofitable  servant, 
where  is  the  hazard,  where  the  possibility,  of  doing  too  much  ;  whereas 
in  doing  too  little,  in  falling  short  of  performing  a  due  obedience  on  the 
Sabbath,  I  may  also  fall  short  of  eternal  life  ?" 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Morals — Duties  to  our  Neighbour. 

When  our  duty  to  others  is  summed  up  in  the  general  epitome  of  the 
second  table,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself;"  although  love 
must  be  so  taken  as  to  include  many  other  principles  and  acts,  yet  we 
are  thereby  taught  the  source  from  which  they  truly  spring,  when  per- 
formed evangelically,  and  also  that  universal  charity  is  to  be  the 
habitual  and  reigning  affection  of  the  heart,  in  all  our  relations  to  our 
fellow  creatures. 

This  affection  is  to  be  considered  in  its  source. 

That  source  is  a  regenerated  state  of  mind.  We  have  shown  that 
the  love  of  God  springs  from  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  those  who 
are  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  that  every  sentiment  which,  in  any 
other  circumstances,  assumes  this  designation,  is  imperfect  or  simulated. 
We  make  the  same  remark  as  to  the  love  of  our  neighbour.  It  is  an 
imperfect  or  simulated  sentiment,  if  it  flow  not  from  the  love  of  God, 
the  sure  mark  of  a  regenerate  nature.     We  here  also  see  the  superior 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  525 

character  of  Christian  morals,  and  of  morals  when  kept  in  connection, 
as  they  ought  always  to  be,  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  their 
operation  in  the  heart.  There  may,  indeed,  be  a  degree  of  natural  be- 
nevolence ;  the  indirect  influence  of  a  benevolent  nature  may  counteract 
the  selfish  and  the  malevolent  feelings ;  and  education  when  well  directed, 
will  come  in  to  the  aid  of  nature.  Yet  the  principle,  as  a  religious  one, 
and  in  its  full  operation,  can  only  result  from  a  supernatural  change 
of  our  nature,  because  that  only  can  subdue  those  affections  which 
counteract  benevolence  and  charity  in  their  efficient  and  habitual  mani- 
festations. 

This  affection  is  also  to  be  considered  in  respect  of  what  it  excludes. 

It  excludes  all  anger  beyond  that  degree  of  resentment  which  a  culpa- 
ble action  in  another  may  call  forth,  in  order  to  mark  the  sense  we  en- 
tertain of  its  evil,  and  to  impress  that  evil  upon  the  offender,  so  that  we 
may  lead  him  to  repent  of  it,  and  forsake  it.  This  seems  the  proper 
rule  by  which  to  distinguish  lawful  anger  from  that  which  is  contrary  to 
charity,  and  therefore  malevolent  and  sinful.  It  excludes  implacability; 
for  if  we  do  not  promptly  and  generously  forgive  others  their  trespasses, 
this  is  deemed  to  be  so  great  a  violation  of  that  law  of  love  which  ought 
to  bind  men  together,  that  our  heavenly  Father  will  not  forgive  us.  It 
excludes  all  revenge ;  so  that  we  are  to  exact  no  punishment  of  another 
for  offences  against  ourselves:  and  though  it  be  lawful  to  call  in  the 
penalties  of  the  laws  for  crimes  against  society,  yet  this  is  never  to  be 
done  on  the  principle  of  private  revenge  ;  but  on  the  public  ground,  that 
law  and  government  are  ordained  of  God,  which  produces  a  case  that 
comes  under  the  inspired  rule,  "  Vengeance  is  mine  ;  I  will  repay,  saith 
the  Lord."  It  excludes  all  prejudice ;  by  which  is  meant  a  harsh  con- 
struction of  men's  motives  and  characters  upon  surmise,  or  partial  know- 
ledge of  the  facts,  accompanied  with  an  inclination  to  form  an  ill  opinion 
of  them  in  the  absence  of  proper  evidence.  This  appears  to  be  what 
the  Apostle  Paul  means,  when  he  says,  "  Charity  thinketh  no  evil."  It 
excludes  all  censor iousn ess  or  evil  speaking,  when  the  end  is  not  the 
correction  of  the  offender,  or  when  a  declaration  of  the  truth  as  to  one 
person  is  not  required  by  our  love  and  duty  to  another ;  for  whenever 
the  end  is  merely  to  lower  a  person  in  the  estimation  of  others,  it  is 
resolvable  solely  into  a  splenetic  and  immoral  feeling.  It  excludes  all 
those  aggressions,  whether  petty  or  more  weighty,  which  may  be  made 
upon  the  interests  of  another,  when  the  law  of  the  case,  or  even  the  ab- 
stract right,  might  not  be  against  our  claim.  These  are  always  com- 
plex cases,  and  can  but  occasionally  occur ;  but  the  rule  which  binds 
us  to  do  unto  others  as  we  would  they  should  do  unto  us,  binds  us  to 
act  upon  the  benevolent  view  of  the  case  ;  and  to  forego  the  rigidness 
of  right.     Finally,  it  excludes,  as  limitations  to  its  exercise,  all  those 

artificial  distinctions  which  have  been  created  by  men,  or  by  providential 

o. 


526  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

arrangentents,  or  by  accidental  circumstances.  Men  of  all  nations,  of 
all  colours,  of  all  conditions,  are  the  objects  of  the  unlimited  precept, 
"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself."  Kind  feelings  produced 
by  natural  instincts,  by  intercourse,  by  country,  may  call  the  love  of 
our  neighbour  into  warmer  exercise  as  to  individuals  or  classes  of  men, 
or  these  may  be  considered  as  distinct  and  special,  though  similar  affec- 
tions superadded  to  this  universal  charity ;  but  as  to  all  men,  this  charity 
is  an  efficient  affection,  excluding  all  ill  will,  and  all  injury. 

But  its  ACTIVE  EXPRESSION  remains  to  be  considered. 

It  is  not  a  merely  negative  affection ;    but  it  brings  forth  rich  and 
varied  fruits.     It  produces  a  feeling  of  delight  in  the  happiness  of  others, 
and  thus  destroys  envy ;  it  is  the  source  of  sympathy  and  compassion ; 
it  opens  the  hand  in  liberality  for  the  supply  of  the  wants  of  others ;  it 
gives  cheerfulness  to  every  service  undertaken  in  the  cause  of  others ; 
it  resists  the  wrong  which  may  be  inflicted  upon  them ;  and  it  will  run 
hazards  of  health  and  life  for  their  sakes.     It  has  special  respect  to  the 
spiritual  interests  and  salvation  of  men  ;  and  thus  it  instructs,  persuades, 
reproves  the  ignorant  and  vicious ;  counsels  the  simple  ;  comforts  the 
doubting  and  perplexed  ;  and  rejoices  in  those  gifts  and  graces  of  others, 
by  which  society  may  be  enlightened  and  purified.     The  zeal  of  apos- 
tles, the  patience  of  martyrs,  the  travels  and  labours  of  evangelists  in  the 
first  ages,  were  all  animated  by  this  affection ;  and  the  earnestness  of 
preachers  in  all  ages,  and  the  more  private  labours  of  Christians  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Souls  of  men,  with  the  operations  of  those  voluntary  asso- 
ciations which  send  forth  missionaries  to  the  heathen,  or  distribute 
Bibles  and  tracts,  or  conduct  schools,  are  all  its  visible  expressions  be- 
fore the  world.     A  principle  of  philanthropy  may  be  conceived  to  exist 
independent  of  the  influence  of  active  and  efficient  Christianity ;  but  it 
has  always  expended  itself  either  in  good  wishes,  or,  at  most,  in  feeble 
efforts,  chiefly  directed  to  the  mitigation  of  a  little  temporary  external 
evil.     Except  in  connection  with  religion,  and  that  the  religion  of  the 
heart,  wrought  and  maintained  there  by  the  acknowledged  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  love  of  mankind  has  never  exhibited  itself  under 
such  views  and  acts  as  those  we  have  just  referred  to.     It  has  never 
been  found  in  characters  naturally  selfish  and  obdurate  ;  has  never  dis- 
posed men  to  make  great  and  painful  sacrifices  for  others ;  never  sym- 
pathized with  spiritual  wretchedness ;  never  been  called  forth  into  its 
highest  exercises  by  considerations  drawn  from  the  immortal  relations 
of  man  to  eternity  ;  never  originated  large  plans  for  the  illumination  and 
moral  culture  of  society ;  never  fixed  upon  the  grand  object  to  which  it 
is  now  bending  the  hearts,  the  interests,  and  hopes  of  the  universal 
Church,  the  conversion  of  the  world.     Philanthropy,  in  systems  of  mere 
ethics,  like  their  love  of  God,  is  a  greatly  inferior  principle  to  that  which 
is  enjoined  by  Christianity,  and  infused  by  its  influence  ; — another  proof 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  527 

of  the  folly  of  separating  morals  from  revealed  truth,  and  of  the  necessity 
of  cultivating  them  upon  evangelical  principles. 

The  same  conclusion  will  be  established,  if  we  consider  those  works 
OF  MERCY  which  the  principle  of  universal  philanthropy  will  dictate,  and 
which  form  a  large  portion  of  our  "  duty  to  our  neighbour."  It  is  more 
the  design  of  this  part  of  the  present  work,  to  exhibit  the  peculiar  nature 
and  perfection  of  the  morals  of  Christianity,  than  to  consider  moral 
duties  in  detail ;  and,  therefore,  it  is  only  necessary  to  assume  what  is 
obvious  to  all,  that  the  exercise  of  practical  mercy  to  the  needy  and 
miserable,  is  a  moral  duty  clearly  revealed,  including  also  the  apphca- 
tion  of  a  part  of  our  property  to  benefit  mankind  in  other  respects,  as 
we  have  opportunity.  But  let  us  ask,  under  what  rules  can  the  quantum 
of  our  exertions  in  doing  good  to  others  be  determined,  except  by  the 
authority  of  revealed  religion  ?  It  is  clear  that  there  is  an  antagonist 
principle  of  selfishness  in  man,  which  counteracts  our  charities  ;  and 
that  the  demands  of  personal  gratification,  and  of  family  interests,  and 
of  show  and  expense  in  our  modes  of  living,  are  apt  to  take  up  so  large 
a  share  of  what  remains  after  our  necessities,  and  the  lawful  demands 
of  station,  and  a  prudent  provision  for  old  age  and  for  our  families  after 
our  decease,  are  met,  that  a  very  small  portion  is  wont  to  be  considered 
as  lawfully  disposable,  under  all  these  considerations,  for  purposes  of 
general  beneficence.  If  we  have  no  rules  or  principles,  it  is  clear  that 
the  most  limited  efibrts  may  pass  for  very  meritorious  acts  ;  or  that  they 
will  be  left  to  be  measured  only  by  the  different  degrees  of  natural  com- 
passion in  man,  or  by  some  immoral  principle,  such  as  the  love  of  human 
praise.  There  is  nothing  in  any  mere  system  of  morals  to  direct  in  such 
cases ;  certainly  nothing  to  compel  either  the  principles  or  the  heart. 
Here  then  we  shall  see  also  in  how  different  a  predicament  this  interest- 
ing branch  of  morality  stands,  when  kept  in  close  and  inseparable  con- 
nection with  Christianity.  It  is  true,  that  we  have  no  specific  rule  as 
to  the  quantum  of  our  givings  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  the  reason  of  this 
is  not  inapparent.  Such  a  rule  must  have  been  branched  out  into  an 
inconvenient  number  of  detailed  directions  to  meet  every  particular  case ; 
it  must  have  respected  the  different  and  changing  states  of  society  and 
civilization  ;  it  must  have  controlled  men's  savings  as  well  as  givings, 
because  the  latter  are  dependent  upon  them ;  it  must  have  prescribed 
modes  of  dress,  and  modes  of  living :  all  which  would  have  left  cases 
still  partially  touched  or  wholly  unprovided  for,  and  the  multiplicity  of 
rules  might  have  been  a  trap  to  our  consciences,  rather  than  the  means 
of  directing  them.  There  is  also  a  more  general  reason  for  this  omis- 
sion.  The  exercise  of  mercy  is  a  work  of  the  afl^ections  ;  it  must  have, 
therefore,  something  free  and  spontaneous  in  it ;  and  it  was  designed  to 
be  voluntar}^  that  the  moral  efl^ect  produced  upon  society  might  be  to 
bind  men  together  in  a  softer  bond,  and  to  call  forth  reciprocally  good 


528  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

affections.  To  this  the  stem  character  of  particular  laws  would  have 
been  inimical.  Christianity  teaches  mercy,  by  general  principles, 
which  at  once  sufficiently  direct  and  leave  to  the  heart  the  free  play  of 
its  affections. 

The  general  law  is  express  and  unequivocal :  "  As  ye  have  oppor- 
tunity do  good  unto  all  men,  and  especially  to  them  that  are  of  the 
household  of  faith."  "  To  do  good  and  to  communicate  forget  not,  for 
with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased."  A  most  important  and  influ- 
ential principle,  to  be  found  in  no  mere  system  of  ethics,  is  also  con- 
tained in  the  revelation  of  a  particular  relation  in  which  we  all  stand  to 
God,  and  on  which  we  must  be  judged  at  the  last  day.  We  are 
"  stewards,"  "  servants,"  to  whom  the  great  Master  has  committed  his 
"  goods,"  to  be  used  according  to  his  directions.  We  have  nothing, 
therefore,  of  our  own,  no  right  in  property,  except  under  the  conditions 
on  which  it  is  committed  to  us ;  and  we  must  give  an  account  for  our 
use  of  it,  according  to  the  rule.  A  rule  of  proportion  is  also  in  various 
passages  of  Scripture  expressly  laid  down  :  "  Where  little  is  given,  little 
is  required  ;  where  much  is  given  much  is  required."  "  For  if  there 
be  first  a  willing  mind,  it  is  accepted  according  to  what  a  man  hath,  and 
not  according  to  what  he  hath  not."  It  is  a  farther  rule,  that  our  chari- 
ties should  be  both  cheerful  and  abundant.  "  See  that  ye  abound  in 
this  grace  also,"  "  not  grudgingly,  or  of  necessity,  for  God  loveth  a 
cheerful  giver."  These  general  rules  and  principles  being  laid  down, 
the  appeal  is  made  to  the  heart,  and  men  are  left  to  the  influence  of  the 
spiritual  and  grateful  affections  excited  there.  All  the  venerable  ex- 
amples of  Scripture  are  brought  to  bear  upon  the  free  and  liberal  exer- 
cises of  beneficence,  crowned  with  the  example  of  our  Saviour :  "  Ye 
know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that,  though  he  was  rich,  yet 
for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his  poverty  might  be- 
come rich."  An  appeal  is  made  to  man's  gratitude  for  the  blessings  of 
Providence  to  himself,  and  he  is  enjoined  to  give  "  as  the  Lord  hath 
prospered  him."  Our  fellow  creatures  are  constantly  presented  to  us 
under  tender  relations,  as  our  "  brethren ;"  or,  more  particularly,  as 
''of  the  household  of  faith."  Special  promises  are  made  of  God's 
favour  and  blessing,  as  the  reward  of  such  acts  in  the  present  life : 
"And  God  is  able  to  make  all  grace  abound  toward  you,  that  ye,  al- 
ways having  all  sufficiency  in  all  things,  may  abound  to  every  good 
work  ;"  and  finally,  ahhough  every  notion  of  merit  is  excluded,  yet  the 
I'ewards  of  eternity  are  represented  as  to  be  graciously  dispensed,  so  as 
specially  to  distinguish  and  honour  every  "  work  of  faith,"  and  "  labour 
of  love."  Under  so  powerful  an  authority,  so  exphcit  a  general  directory^ 
and  so  effectual  an  excitement^  is  this  branch  of  morality  placed  by  the 
Gospel. 

As  our  religion  enjoins  charity,  so  also  it  prescribes  justice.  As  a 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  529 

mutual  dependence  has  been  established  among  men,  so  also  there  are 
mutual  rights,  in  the  rendering  of  which  to  each  other,  justice,  when 
considered  as  a  social  virtue,  consists. 

Various  definitions  and  descriptions  of  justice  are  found  among  mo- 
ralists and  jurists,  of  different  degrees  of  importance  and  utihty  to  those 
who  write,  and  to  those  who  study,  formal  treatises  on  its  collective  or 
separate  branches.  The  distribution  of  justice  into  ethical,  economical, 
and  political,  is  more  suited  to  our  purpose,  and  is  sufficiently  compre- 
hensive. The  first  considers  all  mankind  as  on  a  level ;  the  second 
regards  them  as  associated  into  families,  under  the  several  relations  of 
husband  and  wife,  parents  and  children,  masters  and  servants ;  and  the 
third  comprehends  them  as  united  into  public  states,  and  obliged  to  cer- 
tain duties,  either  as  magistrates  or  people.  On  all  these  the  rules  of 
conduct  in  Scripture  are  exphcit  and  forcible. 

Ethical  justice,  as  it  considers  mankind  as  on  a  level,  chiefly 
therefore  respects  what  are  usually  called  men's  natural  rights,  wliicli 
are  briefly  summed  up  in  three, — life,  property,  and  liberty. 

The  natural  right  to  life  is  guarded  by  the  precept,  "  Tliou  shalt  not 
kill ;"  and  it  is  also  limited  by  ths  more  ancient  injunction  to  the  sons 
of  Noah,  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be 
shed."  In  a  state  of  society,  indeed,  this  right  may  be  farther  limited 
by  a  government,  and  capital  punishfnents  be  extended  to  other  crimes, 
(as  we  see  in  the  Mosaic  law,)  provided  the  law  be  equally  binding  on 
all  offenders,  and  rest  upon  the  necessity  of  the  case,  as  determined  by 
the  good  of  the  whole  community  ;  and  also  that  in  every  country-  pro- 
fessing Christianity,  the  merciful  as  well  as  the  righteous  character  of 
that  religion  be  suffered  to  impress  itself  upon  its  legislation.  But 
against  all  individual  authority  the  life  of  man  is  absolutely  secured ; 
and  not  only  so,  but  anger,  which  is  the  first  principle  of  violence,  and 
which  proceeds  first  to  malignity  and  revenge,  and  then  to  personal 
injuries,  is  prohibited,  under  the  penalty  of  the  Divine  wrath;  a  lofty 
proof  of  the  superior  character  of  the  Christian  rule  of  justice. 

In  property,  lawfully  acquired,  that  is,  acquired  without  injury  to 
others,  every  man  has  also  a  natural  right.  This  right  also  may  be 
restrained  in  society,  without  injustice,  seeing  it  is  but  the  price  which 
every  man  pays  for  protection,  and  other  advantages  of  the  social  state  ; 
but  here  also  the  necessity  of  the  case,  resting  upon  the  benefit  of  the 
community,  is  to  be  the  rule  of  this  modification  of  the  natural  claim. 
The  law  too  must  lie  equally  upon  all,  cceteris  paribus ;  and  eveiy  indi- 
vidual whose  right  of  property  is  thus  interfered  with  must  have  his  due 
share  of  the  common  advantage.  Against  individual  aggression  the 
right  of  property  is  secured  by  the  Divine  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal ;" 
and  by  another  law  which  carries  the  restraint  up  to  the  very  principle 
of  justice  in  the  heart,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet ;"  covetousness  being 

Vol.  II.  34 


530  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

that  corrupt  affection  from  which  injuries  done  to  others  in  their  pro- 
perty arise.  The  Christian  injunction,  to  be  "  content  with  such  things 
as  we  have,"  is  another  important  security.  The  rule  which  binds 
rulers  and  governments  in  their  interferences  with  this  natural  right  of 
property,  comes  under  the  head  of  political  justice. 

Liberty  is  another  natural  right,  which  by  individual  authority,  at 
least,  cannot  be  interfered  with.  Hence  "  man  stealing,"  the  object  of 
which  is  to  reduce  another  to  slavery,  by  obtaining  forcible  possession 
of  his  person,  and  compelling  his  labour,  is  ranked  with  crhnes  of  the 
greatest  magnitude  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  against  it  the  special 
vengeance  of  God  is  threatened.  By  the  Jewish  law  also,  it  was 
punished  with  death.  How  far  the  natural  right  which  every  man  has 
to  his  own  liberty  may,  like  the  natural  right  to  property,  be  restrained 
by  public  authority,  is  a  point  on  which  different  opinions  have  been 
held.  Prisoners  of  war  were  formerly  considered  to  be  absolute  cap. 
fives,  the  right  of  which  claim  is  involved  in  the  question  of  the  right 
of  war.  Where  one  can  be  justified,  so  may  the  other ;  since  a  sur- 
render of  the  person  in  war  is  the  commutation  of  liberty  for  life.*  In 
the  more  humane  practice  of  modern  warfare,  an  exchange  of  prisoners 
is  effected ;  but  even  this  supposes  an  acquired  right  on  each  side  in 
the  prisoners,  and  a  commutation  by  an  exchange.  Should  the  progeny 
of  such  prisoners  of  war,  doomed,  as  by  ancient  custom,  to  perpetual 
servitude,  be  also  kept  in  slaveiy,  and  the  purchase  of  slaves  also  be 
practised,  the  question  which  then  arises  is  one  which  tries  the  whole 
case  of  slavery,  as  far  as  public  law  is  concerned.  Among  the  patri- 
archs there  was  a  mild  species  of  domestic  servitude,  distinct  from  that 
of  captives  of  war.  Among  the  Jews,  a  Hebrew  might  be  sold  for 
debt,  or  sell  himself  when  poor,  but  only  till  the  year  of  release.  After 
that,  his  continuation  in  a  state  of  slavery  was  perfectly  voluntary. 
The  Jews  might,  however,  hold  foreigners  as  slaves  for  life.  Michaelis 
has  well  observed,  that,  by  the  restrictions  of  his  law,  Moses  remark- 
ably mitigated  the  rigours  of  slavery.  "  This  is,  as  it  were,  the  spirit 
of  his  laws  respecting  it.  He  appears  to  have  regarded  it  as  a  hard- 
ship, and  to  have  disapproved  of  its  severities.  Hence  we  find  him,  in 
Deut.  xxiii,  15,  16,  ordaining,  that  no  foreign  servant,  who  sought  for 
refuge  among  the  Israelites,  should  be  delivered  up  to  his  master." 
{Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses.)    This  view  of  the  case,  we  may 

*  Montesquieu  says,  "  It  is  false  that  killing  in  war  is  lawful,  unless  in  a  case 
of  absolute  necessity :  but  when  a  man  has  made  another  his  slave,  he  cannot 
be  said  to  have  been  under  a  necessity  of  taking  away  his  life,  since  he  actually 
did  not  take  it  away.  War  gives  no  other  right  over  prisoners  than  to  disable 
them  from  doing  any  farther  harm,  by  securing  their  persons." — And  "  if  a  pri- 
soner of  war  is  not  to  be  reduced  to  slavery,  much  less  are  his  children."  This 
reason,  therefore,  with  others,  assigned  by  the  civilians  in  justification  of  slavery, 
he  concludes  is  "  false."  {Spirit  of  Laws,  book  xv,  chap,  ii.) — American  Editors. 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  531 

add,  will  probably  afford  tbe  reason  why  slavery  was  at  tM  allowed 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  The  general  state  of  society  in  the  sur- 
rounding  nations  might  perhaps  render  it  a  necessary  evil ;  but  in  other 
countries  it  existed  in  forms  harsh  and  oppressive,  while  the  merciful 
nature  of  the  Mosaic  institute  impressed  upon  it  a  mild  and  mitigated 
character,  in  recognition  of  man's  natural  rights,  and  as  an  example  to 
other  countries.  And  to  show  how  great  a  contrast  with  our  modern 
colonial  slavery,  the  case  of  slaves  among  the  Jews  presented,  we  may 
remark,  that  all  foreign  slaves  were  circumcised,  and  therefore  initiated 
into  the  true  religion  ;  that  they  had  the  full  and  strict  advantage  of  the 
Sabbath  confirmed  to  them  by  express  statute  ;  that  they  had  access  to 
the  solemn  religious  festivals  of  the  Jews,  and  partook  of  the  feasts 
made  upon  the  offerings ;  that  they  could  possess  property,  as  appears 
from  Lev.  xxv,  49,  and  2  Sam.  ix,  10  ;  and  that  all  the  fruits  which 
grew  spontaneously  during  the  Sabbatical  year  were  given  to  them,  and 
to  the  indigent.  Michaelis  has  also  showed,  that  not  only  was  the  ox 
not  muzzled  when  treading  out  the  corn,  but  that  the  slaves  and  day 
labourers  might  eat  without  restraint  of  the  fruits  they  were  gathering 
in  th^ir  master's  service,  and  drink  of  the  wine  they  pressed  from  the 
wine  press.  {Commentaries  on  iJie  Laws  of  Moses,  art.  130.)  The 
Jewish  law  may  therefore  be  considered  not  so  much  as  controlling  the 
natural  right  which  man  has  to  liberty,  and  so  authorizing  the  infrac- 
tion of  that  right  under  certain  circumstances,  but  as  coming  in  to 
regulate  and  to  soften  a  state  of  things  already  existing,  and  grown  into 
general  practice.  All,  therefore,  that  can  be  fairly  inferred  from  the 
existence  of  slavery  under  that  law,  is,  that  a  legislature,  in  certain 
cases,  may  be  justified  in  mitigating,  rather  than  abolishing,  that  evil. 
But  even  here,  since  the  Legislator  was  in  fact  God,  whose  right  to 
dispose  of  his  creatures  cannot  be  questioned,  and  since  also  the  nations 
neighbouring  to  the  Jews  were  under  a  malediction  because  of  their 
idolatries,  tlie  Jewish  law  can  be  no  rule  to  a  Christian  state  ;  and  all 
arguments  drawn  from  it  in  favour  of  perpetual  slavery,  suppose  that  a 
mere  earthly  legislature  is  invested  with  the  powers  and  prerog-atives  of 
the  Divine  Legislator  of  the  Jews,  which  of  course  vitiates  the  whole 
reasoning. 

As  to  the  existence  of  slavery  in  Christian  states,  every  government, 
as  soon  as  it  professes  to  be  Christian,  binds  itself  to  be  regulated  by 
the  principles  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  though  a  part  of  its  subjects 
should  at  that  time  be  in  a  state  of  servitude,  and  their  sudden  emanci- 
pation might  be  obviously  an  injury  to  society  at  large,  it  is  bound  to 
show  that  its  spirit  and  tendency  is  as  inimical  to  slavery  as  is  the 
Christianity  which  it  professes.  All  the  injustice  and  oppression  against 
which  it  can  guard  that  condition,  and  all  the  mitigating  regulations  it 
can  adopt,  are  obligatoty  upon  it ;  and  since  also  every  Christian  slave 


532  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

is  enjoined  by  apostolic  authority  to  choose  freedom,  wnen  it  is  possible 
to  attain  it,  as  being  a  better  state,  and  more  befitting  a  Christian  man, 
so  is  every  Christian  master  bound,  by  the  principle  of  loving  his  neigh- 
bour, and  more  especially  his  "  brother  in  Christ,"  as  himself,  to  pro- 
mote his  passing  into  that  better  and  more  Christian  state.  To  the 
instruction  of  the  slaves  in  religion  would  every  such  Christian  govern- 
ment also  be  bound,  and  still  farther  to  adopt  measures  for  the  final 
extinction  of  slavery ;  the  rule  of  its  proceeding  in  this  case  being  the 
accomplishment  of  this  object  as  soon  as  is  compatible  vi^ith  the  real 
welfare  of  the  enslaved  portion  of  its  subjects  themselves,  and  not  the 
consideration  of  the  losses  which  might  be  sustained  by  their  proprietors, 
which,  however,  ought  to  be  compensated  by  other  means,  as  far  as  they 
are  just,  and  equitably  estimated. 

If  this  be  the  mode  of  proceeding  clearly  pointed  out  by  Christianity 
to  a  state  on  its  first  becoming  Christian,  when  previously,  and  for  ages, 
the  practice  of  slavery  had  grown  up  with  it ;  how  much  more  forcibly 
does  it  impose  its  obligation  upon  nations  involved  in  the  guilt  of  the 
modern  African  slavery  !  They  professed  Christianity  when  they  com- 
menced  the  practice.  They  entered  upon  a  traffic  which  ab  initio  was, 
upon  their  own  principles,  unjust  and  cruel.  They  had  no  rights  of 
war  to  plead  against  the  natural  rights  of  the  first  captives ;  who  were 
in  fact  stolen,  or  purchased  from  the  stealers,  knowing  them  to  be  so. 
The  governments  themselves  never  acquired  any  right  of  property  in 
the  parents ;  they  have  none  in  their  descendants,  and  can  acquire 
none ;  as  the  thief  who  steals  cattle  cannot,  should  he  feed  and  defend 
them,  acquire  any  right  of  property,  either  in  them  or  the  stock  they 
may  produce,  although  he  should  be  at  the  charge  of  rearing  them. 
These  governments  not  having  a  right  of  property  in  their  colonial 
slaves,  could  not  transfer  any  right  of  property  in  them  to  their  present 
masters,  for  it  could  not  give  what  it  never  had  ;  nor,  by  its  connivance 
at  the  robberies  and  purchases  of  stolen  human  beings  alter  the  essential 
injustice  of  the  transaction.  All  such  governments  are  therefore  clearly 
bound,  as  they  fear  God  and  dread  his  displeasure,  to  restore  all  their 
slaves  to  the  condition  of  free  men.  Restoration  to  their  friends  and 
country  is  now  out  of  the  question ;  they  are  bound  to  protect  them 
where  they  are,  and  have  the  right  to  exact  their  obedience  to  good 
laws  in  return  ;  but  property  in  them  they  cannot  obtain  ; — their  natural 
right  to  liberty  is  untouched  and  inviolable.  The  manner  in  which  this 
right  is  to  be  restored,  we  grant,  is  in  the  power  of  such  governments 
to  determine,  provided  that  proceeding  be  regulated  by  the  principles 
above  laid  down, — First,  that  the  emancipation  be  sincerely  determined 
upon,  at  some  time  future :  Secondly,  that  it  be  not  delayed  beyond  the 
period  which  the  general  interest  of  the  slaves  themselves  prescribes, 
and  which  is  to  be  judged  of  benevolently,  and  without  any  bias  of 
2 


THIRD,]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  533 

judgment,  giving  the  advantage  of  every  doubt  to  the  injured  party : 
Thirdly,  that  all  possible  means  be  adopted  to  render  freedom  a  good 
to  them.  It  is  only  under  such  circumstances  that  the  continuance  of 
slavery  among  us  can  cease  to  be  a  national  sin,  calling  down,  as  it 
has  done,  and  must  do  until  a  process  of  emancipation  be  honestly 
commenced,  the  just  displeasure  of  God.  What  compensations  may 
be  justly  claimed  from  the  governments,  that  is,  the  public  of  those 
countries  who  have  entangled  themselves  in  this  species  of  unjust  deal- 
ing, by  those  who  have  purchased  men  and  women  whom  no  one  had 
the  right  to  sell,  and  no  one  had  the  right  to  buy,  is  a  perfectly  distinct 
question,  and  ought  not  to  turn  repentance  and  justice  out  of  their 
course,  or  delay  their  operations  for  a  moment.  Perhaps,  such  is  the 
unfruitful  nature  of  all  wrong,  that  it  may  be  found,  that,  as  free  la. 
bourers,  the  slaves  would  be  of  equal  or  more  value  to  those  who  employ 
them,  than  at  present.  If  otherwise,  as  in  some  degree  "  all  have  sin- 
ned,"  the  real  loss  ought  to  be  borne  by  all,  when  that  loss  is  fairly  and 
impartially  ascertained  ;  but  of  which  loss,  the  slave  interest,  if  we  may 
so  call  it,  ought  in  justice  to  bear  more  than  an  equal  share,  as  having 
had  the  greatest  gain.* 

The  rules  of  Christian  justice  thus  secure  the  three  great  natural 
rights  of  man  ;  but  it  maybe  inquired  whether  he  has  himself  the  power 
of  surrendering  them  at  his  own  option  ? 

And  first  with  respect  to  life. 

Since  government  is  an  institution  of  God,  it  seems  obligatory  upon 
all  men  to  live  in  a  social  state  ;  and  if  so,  to  each  is  conceded  the  right 
of  putting  his  life  to  hazard,  when  called  upon  by  his  government  to  de- 
fend  that  state  from  domestic  rebellion  or  foreign  war.  So  also  we  have 
the  power  to  hazard  our  hves  to  save  a  fellow  creature  from  perishing. 
In  times  of  persecution  for  religion,  we  are  enjoined  by  our  Lord  to  flee 
from  one  city  to  another ;  but  when  flight  is  cut  oflf,  we  have  the  power 
to  surrender  life  rather  than  betray  our  allegiance  to  Christ.  According 
to  the  apostle's  rule,  "  we  ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren  ;" 
that  is,  for  the  Church  and  the  cause  of  religion.  In  this  case,  and  in 
some  others,  accompanied  with  danger  to  life,  when  a  plain  rule  of  duty 
is  seen  to  be  binding  upon  us,  we  are  not  only  at  liberty  to  take  the  risk, 
but  are  bound  to  do  it ;  since  it  is  more  our  duty  to  obey  God  than  to 
take  care  of  our  health  and  life.  These  instances  of  devotion  have  been 
by  some  writers  called  "  suicides  of  duty,"  a  phrase  which  may  well  be 
dispensed  with,  although  the  sentiment  implied  in  it  is  correct. 

*  The  above  paragraphs,  under  the  last  head,  were  obviously  written  with  a 
view  to  states  in  which  Christianity,  as  a  system,  is  formally  established  by  law. 
and  in  which  the  acts  of  the  government  are  oflBcially  based  on  this  principle, 
— American  Editors. 


534  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

On  9uicide,  properly  so  called,  that  is  self  murder,  our  modem  moral- 
ists have  added  little  to  what  is  advanced  by  the  ethical  writers  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  to  prove  its  unlawfulness ;  for,  though  suicide  was  much 
practised  in  those  ancient  states,  and  sometimes  commended,  especially 
by  the  Stoics,  it  was  occasionally  condemned.  "  We  men,"  says  Plato, 
"  are  all  by  the  appointment  of  God  in  a  certain  prison  or  custody,  which 
we  ought  not  to  break  out  of,  or  run  away."  So  likewise  Cicero  :  "  God, 
the  supreme  governor  of  all  things,  forbids  us  to  depart  hence  without 
his  order.  All  pious  men  ought  to  have  patience  to  continue  in  the 
body,  as  long  as  God  shall  please,  who  sent  us  hither ;  and  not  force 
themselves  out  of  the  world  before  he  calls  for  them,  lest  they  be  found 
deserters  of  the  station  appointed  them  by  God." 

This  is  the  reasoning  which  has  generally  satisfied  our  moralists  on 
this  subject,  with  the  exception  of  some  infidel  sophists,  and  two  or  three 
writers  of  paradoxes  in  the  Estabhshed  Church,  who  have  defended  sui- 
cide, or  affected  to  do  so.  Paley  has  added  some  other  considerations, 
drawn  from  his  doctrine  of  general  tendency,  and  from  the  duties  which 
are  deserted,  the  injuries  brought  upon  others,  &;c ;  but  the  whole  only 
shows,  that  merely  ethical  reasoning  furnishes  but  a  feeble  barrier  against 
this  offence  against  God,  against  society,  and  against  ourselves,  inde- 
pendent of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  There  the  prohibitions  of  a  Divine 
law  lie  directly  against  this  act,  and  also  the  whole  spirit  of  that  economy 
under  which  we  are  placed  by  almighty  God. 

It  is  very  true,  that,  in  the  Old  Testament  history,  we  have  a  few 
instances  of  suicide  among  the  Jews,  which  were  not  marked  by  any 
penal  visitation,  as  among  modern  nations,  upon  the  remains  of  the  de- 
ceased ;  such  as  the  denial  of  honourable  sepulture,  &c.  But  this  arose 
from  the  absence  of  all  penalty  in  such  cases  in  the  Mosaic  law.  In 
this  there  was  great  reason  ;  for  the  subject  himself  is  by  his  own  dire- 
ful act  put  beyond  the  reach  of  human  visitation  ;  and  every  dishonour 
done  to  the  inanimate  corse  is  only  punishment  inflicted  upon  the  inno- 
cent survivors,  vvho,  in  most  cases,  have  a  large  measure  of  suffering 
already  entailed  upon  them.  This  was  probably  the  humane  reason  for 
the  silence  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  to  the  punishment  of  suicide. 

But  as  the  law  of  the  two  tables  is  of  general  moral  obligation,  al- 
though  a  part  also  of  the  municipal  law  of  the  Jews ;  as  it  concerned 
them  as  creatures,  as  well  as  subjects  of  the  theocracy ;  it  takes  cogni- 
zance of  acts  not  merely  as  prejudicial  to  society,  but  as  offensive  to  God, 
and  in  opposition  to  his  will  as  the  ruler  of  the  world.  The  precept, 
therefore,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  must  be  taken  to  forbid,  not  only  mur- 
der properly  so  called,  which  is  a  crime  against  society,  to  be  reached 
by  human  penalties,  but  also  self  destruction,  which,  though  a  crime  also 
ill  a  lower  degree  against  society,  no  human  penalties  can  visit,  but  is 
lefl,  since  the  offender  is  out  of  the  reach  of  man,  wholly  to  the  retribu- 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  535 

tion  of  God.  The  absence  of  all  post  mortem  penalties  against  suicide 
in  the  Mosaic  law,  is  no  proof,  therefore,  that  it  is  not  included  in  the 
prohibition,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  any  more  than  the  absence  of  all  pe- 
nalties in  the  same  law  against  a  covetous  disposition,  proves  any  thing 
against  the  precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  being  interpreted  to  extend 
to  the  heart  of  man,  although  violences,  thefts,  and  other  instances  of 
covetousness,  in  action  only,  are  restrained  in  the  Mosaic  law  by  positive 
penalties.  Some  have  urged  it,  however,  as  a  great  absurdity,  to  allege 
this  commandment  as  a  prohibition  of  suicide.  "  When  a  Christian 
moralist,"  says  Dr.  Whately,  "  is  called  on  for  a  direct  Scriptural  pre- 
cept against  suicide,  instead  of  replying  that  the  Bible  is  not  meant  for  a 
complete  code  of  laws,  but  for  a  system  of  motives  and  princi'ples,  the 
answer  frequently  given  is,  'Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.'  Suicide,  if  any 
one  considers  the  nature,  and  not  the  name  of  it,  (self  murder,)  evidently 
wants  the  essential  characteristic  of  murder,  viz.  the  hurt  and  injury  done 
to  one's  neighbour,  in  depriving  him  of  life,  as  well  as  to  others  by  the 
insecurity  they  are  in  consequence  liable  to  feel."  [Elements  of  Logic.) 
All  this  might  be  correct  enough,  but  for  one  error  into  which  the  writer 
has  fallen, — that  of  assuming  that  the  precept  is,  "  Thou  shalt  do  no 
murder ;"  for  if  that  were  the  term  used  in  the  strict  sense,  we  need  not 
be  told  that  suicide  is  not  murder,  which  is  only  saying,  that  the  killing 
one's  self  is  not  the  killing  another.  The  authorized  translation  uses 
the  word  "  A;i//,"  "  thou  shalt  not  Tiill,^^  as  better  rendering  the  Hebrew 
word,  which  has  a  similar  latitude  of  meaning,  and  is  used  to  express 
fortuitous  homicide,  and  the  act  of  depriving  of  life  generally,  as  well  as 
murder,  properly  so  called.  That  the  prohibition  respects  the  kilhng 
of  others  with  criminal  intent,  all  agree,  and  Moses  describes.  Numbers 
i,  35,  the  circumstances  which  make  that  killing  so  criminal  as  to  be 
punishable  with  death  ;  but  that  he  included  the  different  kinds  of  homi- 
cide within  the  prohibition,  is  equally  certain,  because  the  Mosaic  law 
takes  cognizance  of  homicide,  and  provides  for  the  due  examination  of 
its  circumstances  by  the  judges,  and  recognizes  the  custom  of  the  Goel, 
or  avenging  of  blood,  and  provides  cities  of  refuge  for  the  homicide  ;  a 
provision  which,  how^ever  merciful,  left  the  incautious  manslayer  subject 
to  risks  and  inconveniences  which  had  the  nature  of  penalties.  So  ten- 
der was  this  law  of  the  life  of  man !  Moses,  however,  as  a  legislator, 
applying  this  great  moral  table  of  laws  to  practical  legislation,  could  not 
extend  the  penalties  under  this  prohibition  farther  than  to  these  two 
cases,  because  in  cases  of  suicide  the  offender  is  out  of  the  reach  of  hu- 
man power ;  but,  as  we  see  the  precept  extended  beyond  the  case  of 
murder  with  criminal  intention,  to  homicide,  an^l  that  the  word  used  in 
the  prohibition,  "  Thou  shalt  not  A:i/Z,"  is  so  indefinite  as  to  comprehend 
every  act  by  which  man  is  deprived  of  life,  when  it  has  no  authority 
from  God ;  it  has  been  very  properly  extended  by  divines  and  Scriptu, 

3 


536  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ral  moralists,  not  only  to  homicide,  but  from  that  to  suicide.  This,  in- 
deed,  appears  to  be  its  import,  that  it  prohibits  the  talking  away  of  human 
life  in  all  cases,  without  authority  from  God,  which  authority  he  has 
lodged  with  human  governments,  the  "  powers  ordained  by  him"  for  the 
regulation  of  mankind,  in  what  relates  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  soci- 
ety ;  and  whenever  the  life  of  man  is  taken  away,  except  in  cases  sane- 
tioned  by  human  governments,  proceeding  upon  the  rules  and  principles 
of  the  word  of  God,  then  the  precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  is  directly 
violated.  Dr.  Whately,  in  the  passage  above  adverted  to,  objects  to 
suicide  being  called  -self  murder,  because  this  criminal  act  has  not  the 
qualities  of  that  by  which  the  life  of  another  is  intentionally  and  mah- 
ciously  taken  away  ;  but  if  the  dehberate  and  intentional  deprivation  of 
another  of  life,  without  authority  from  the  Divine  law,  and  from  human 
laws  established  upon  them,  be  that  which,  in  fact,  constitutes  "  murder," 
then  is  suicide  entitled  to  be  branded  with  the  same  odious  appellation. 
The  circumstances  must,  of  necessity,  differ  ;  but  the  act  itself  has  essen- 
tially the  same  criminality,  though  not  in  the  same  degree, — it  is  the 
taking  away  of  the  life  of  a  human  being,  without  the  authority  of  God, 
the  maker  and  proprietor  of  all,  and  therefore  in  opposition  to,  and  defi- 
ance of,  his  authority.  That  suicide  has  very  deservedly  received  the 
morally  descriptive  appellation  of  self  murder,  will  also  appear  from  the 
reason  given,  in  the  first  prohibition  against  murder,  for  making  this 
species  of  violence  a  capital  crime.  In  the  precepts  delivered  to  the 
sons  of  Noah,  and,  therefore,  through  them,  to  all  their  descendants^ 
that  is,  to  all  mankind,  that  against  murder  is  thus  delivered.  Gen.  ix,  6, 
"  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed,  for  in 
the  image  of  God  made  he  man.^'  There  is  in  this  reason  a  manifest 
reference  to  the  dignity  put  upon  human  nature,  by  its  being  endowed 
with  a  rational  and  immortal  spirit.  The  crime  of  murder  is  made  to 
lie,  therefore,  not  merely  in  the  putting  to  death  the  animal  part  of  man's 
nature,  for  this  is  merged  in  a  higher  consideration,  which  seems  to  be, 
the  indignity  done  to  the  noblest  of  the  works  of  God  ;  and  particularly, 
the  value  of  Ufe  to  an  immortal  being,  accountable  in  another  state  for 
the  actions  done  in  this,  and  which  ought,  for  this  very  reason,  to  be 
specially  guarded,  since  death  introduces  him  into  changeless  and  eter- 
nal relations,  which  were  not  to  lie  at  the  mercy  of  human  passions. 
Such  moralists  as  the  writer  above  quoted,  would  restrain  the  essential 
characteristics  of  an  act  of  murder  to  the  "  hurt  done  to  a  neighbour  in 
depriving  him  of  life,"  and  the  "insecurity"  inflicted  upon  society;  but 
in  this  ancient  and  universal  law,  it  is  made  eminently  to  consist  in  con- 
tempt of  the  image  of  God  in  man,  and  its  interference  with  man's  im- 
mortal interests  and  relations  as  a  deathless  spirit ;  and  if  so,  then  sui- 
cide bears  upon  it  these  deep  and  awful  characteristics  of  murder.  It 
is  much  more  wisely  said  by  Bishop  Kidder,  in  his  remarks  upon  this 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  537 

passage,  tnat  the  reason  given, — "  for  in  the  image  of  God  made  he 
man," — is  a  farther  aggravation  of  the  sin  of  murder.  It  is  a  great 
trespass  upon  God,  as  it  destroys  his  hkeness ;  and  self  murder,  upon 
this  account,  is  forhidden  as  well  as  the  killing  of  others. 

Whatever  weight  may  be  due  to  the  considerations  urged  by  the  mo. 
ralists  above  quoted  against  this  crime, — and  every  motive  which  may 
deter  men  from  listening  to  the  first  temptation  to  so  direful  an  act,  is 
important, — yet  the  guards  of  Christianity  must  be  acknowledged  to  be 
of  a  more  powerful  kind.  For  the  principles  of  our  religion  cannot  be 
understood  without  our  perceiving,  that,  of  almost  all  other  crimes,  wilful 
suicide  ought  most  to  be  dreaded.  It  is  a  sin  against  God's  authority. 
He  is  "  the  God  of  our  life ;"  in  "  his  hand  our  breath  is  ;"  and  we 
usurp  his  sovereignty  when  we  presume  to  dispose  of  it.  As  resulting 
from  the  pressure  of  mortifications  of  spirit,  or  the  troubles  of  life,  it 
becomes  a  sin,  as  arraigning  his  providential  wisdom  and  goodness.  It 
implies  either  an  Atheistic  denial  of  God's  government,  or  a  rebeUious 
opposition  to  his  permissive  acts  or  direct  appointments  ;  it  cannot  be 
committed,  therefore,  when  the  mind  is  sound,  but  in  the  absence  of  all 
the  Christian  virtues,  of  humility,  self  denial,  patience,  and  the  fear  and 
love  of  God,  and  only  under  the  influence  of  pride,  worldliness,  forget- 
fulness  of  God,  and  contempt  of  him.  It  hides  from  the  mind  the  re- 
alities of  a  future  judgment,  or  it  defies  them  ;  and  it  is  consummated  by 
the  character  of  impardonableness,  because  it  places  the  criminal  at 
once  beyond  the  reach  of  mercy. 

If  no  man  has  the  right,  then,  to  dispose  of  his  own  life  by  suicide,  he 
has  no  right  to  hazard  it  in  duels.  The  silence  of  the  pulpits  in  those 
quarters  where  only  the  warning  voice  of  the  Christian  preacher  can  be 
heard  by  that  class  of  persons  most  addicted  to  this  crime,  is  exceed- 
ingly disgraceful ;  for  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  palliating  views 
of  this  practice  taken  by  some  ethical  writers  of  celebrity,  together  with 
the  loose  reasonings  of  men  of  the  world,  have,  from  this  neglect,  exer- 
cised much  influence  upon  many  minds  ;  and  the  consequence  has  been 
that  hundreds,  in  this  professedly  Christian  country,  have  fallen  victims 
to  false  notions  of  honour,  and  to  imperfect  notions  of  the  obligations 
of  their  religion.  Paley  has  the  credit  of  dealing  with  this  vice  with 
greater  decision  than  many  of  our  moralists.  He  classes  it  very  justly 
with  murder.  "  Murder  is  forbidden ;  and  wherever  human  life  is  de- 
liberately  taken  away,  otherwise  than  by  pubKc  authority,  there  is  mur- 
der."  {Moral  and  Political  Philosophy.)  "If  unauthorized  laws  of 
honour  be  allowed  to  create  exceptions  to  Divine  prohibitions,  there  is 
an  end  to  all  morality,  as  founded  in  the  will  of  the  Deity ;  and  the  ob- 
ligation of  every  duty  may,  at  one  time  or  other,  be  discharged  by  the 
caprice  and  fluctuations  of  fashion."  {Moral  and  Political  Philosophy.) 
Tlie  fact  is,  that  we  must  either  renounce  Christianity,  or  try  all  cases 

2 


538  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

by  its  rule.  The  question  of  the  lawfulness  of  duelling  is  thus  promptly 
disposed  of.  If  I  have  received  a  personal  injury,  I  am  bound  to  for- 
give it,  unless  it  be  of  such  a  nature  that  it  becomes  a  duty  to  punish  it 
by  due  course  of  law ;  but  even  then  not  in  the  spirit  of  revenge,  but 
out  of  respect  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  society.  If  I  have  given 
offence,  I  am  bound  to  acknowledge  it,  and  to  make  reparation  ;  and  if 
my  adversary  will  not  be  satisfied,  and  insists  upon  my  staking  my  life 
against  his  own,  no  considerations  of  reputation  or  disgrace,  the  good  or 
ill  opinion  of  men,  who  form  their  judgments  in  utter  disregard  to  the 
laws  of  God,  can  have  any  more  weight  in  this,  than  in  any  other  case 
of  immorality.  The  sin  of  duelling  unites,  in  fact,  the  two  crimes  of 
suicide  and  of  murder.  He  who  falls  in  a  duel  is  guilty  of  suicide,  by 
voluntarily  exposing  himself  to  be  slain  ;  he  by  whom  he  falls  is  guilty 
of  murder,  as  having  shed  man's  blood  without  authority.  Nay,  the 
guilt  of  the  two  crimes  unites  in  the  same  person.  He  who  falls  is  a 
suicide  in  fact,  and  the  murderer  of  another  in  intention ;  he  by  whom 
he  falls  is  a  murderer  in  fact,  and  so  far  a  suicide  as  to  have  put  his 
own  life  into  imminent  peril,  in  contempt  of  God's  authority  over  him. 
He  has  contemned  the  "  image  of  God  in  man,"  both  in  himself  and  in 
his  brother.  And  where  duels  are  not  fatal  on  either  side,  the  whole 
guilt  is  chargeable  upon  the  parties,  as  a  sin  purposed  in  the  hearty 
although,  in  that  case,  there  is  space  left  for  repentance. 

Life,  then,  is  not  disposable  at  the  option  of  man,  nor  is  property 
itself,  without  respect  to  the  rules  of  the  Divine  law  ;  and  here,  too,  we 
shall  perceive  the  feebleness  of  the  considerations  urged,  in  merely 
moral  systems,  to  restrain  prodigal  and  wasteful  expenditure,  hazardous 
speculations,  and  even  the  obvious  evil  of  gambling.  Many  weighty 
arguments,  we  grant,  may  be  drawn  against  all  these  from  the  claims  of 
children,  and  near  relations,  whose  interests  we  are  bound  to  regard, 
and  whom  we  can  have  no  right  to  expose  even  to  the  chance  of  being 
involved  in  the  same  ruin  with  ourselves.  But  these  reasons  can  have 
little  sway  with  those  who  fancy  that  they  can  keep  within  the  verge 
of  extreme  danger,  and  who  will  plead  their  "  natural  right"  to  do  what 
they  will  with  their  own.  In  cases,  too,  where  there  may  be  no  chil- 
dren or  dependent  relatives,  the  individual  would  feel  less  disposed  to 
acknowledge  the  force  of  this  class  of  reasons,  or  think  them  quite  inap- 
plicable to  his  case.  But  Christianity  enjoins  "moderation"  of  the 
desires,  and  temperance  in  the  gratification  of  the  appetites,  and  in  the 
show  and  splendour  of  life,  even  where  a  state  of  opulence  can  com- 
mand them.  It  has  its  admonitions  against  the  "  love  of  money ;" 
againt  "  willing  to  be  rich,"  except  as  "  the  Lord  may  prosper  a  man" 
in  the  usual  track  and  course  of  honest  industry, — authoritative  cautions 
which  lie  directly  against  hazardous  speculations  ;  and  it  warns  such  as 
despise  them  of  the  consequent  "  temptations"  and  spiritual  "  snares,'* 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  539 

destructive  to  habits  of  piety,  and  ultimately  to  the  soul,  into  which  they 
must  fall, — considerations  of  vast  moment,  but  peculiar  to  itself,  and 
quite  out  of  the  range  of  those  moral  systems  which  have  no  respect  to 
its  authority.  Against  gambling,  in  its  most  innocent  forms,  it  sets  its 
injunction,  "  Redeeming  the  time  ;"  and  in  its  more  aggravated  cases,  it 
opposes  to  it  not  only  the  above  considerations,  as  it  springs  from  an 
unhallowed  "  love  of  money ;"  but  the  whole  of  that  spirit  and  temper 
which  it  makes  to  be  obligatory  upon  us,  and  which  those  evil  and  often 
diabolical  excitements,  produced  by  this  habit,  so  fearfully  violate. 
Above  all,  it  makes  property  a  trust,  to  be  employed  under  the  rules 
prescribed  by  Him  who,  as  sovereign  proprietor,  has  deposited  it  with 
us,  which  rules  require  its  use  certainly  ;  (for  the  covetous  are  excluded 
from  the  kingdom  of  God ;)  but  its  use,  first,  for  the  supply  of  our  wants, 
according  to  our  station,  with  moderation  ;  then,  as  a  provision  for  chil- 
dren, and  dependent  relatives  ;  finally,  for  purposes  of  charity  and  reli. 
gion,  in  which  "  grace,"  as  before  stated,  it  requires  us  "  to  abound ;" — 
and  it  enforces  all  these  by  placing  us  under  the  responsibility  of  account- 
ing to  God  himself,  in  person,  for  the  abuse  or  neglect  of  this  trust,  at 
the  general  judgment. 

With  respect  to  the  third  natural  right,  that  of  liberty,  it  is  a  ques- 
tion which  can  seldom  or  never  occur  in  the  present  state  of  society, 
whether  a  man  is  free  to  part  with  it  for  a  valuable  consideration.  Un- 
der the  law  of  Moses,  this  was  certainly  allowed ;  but  a  Christian  man 
stands  on  different  ground.  To  a  pagan  he  would  not  be  at  hberty  to 
enslave  himself,  because  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  put  to  hazard  his  soul's 
interests,  which  might  be  interfered  with  by  the  control  given  to  a  pagan 
over  his  time  and  conduct.  To  a  Christian  he  could  not  be  at  Uberty 
to  alienate  himself,  because,  the  spirit  of  Christianity  being  opposed  to 
slavery,  the  one  is  not  at  liberty  to  buy,  nor  the  other  to  sell,  for  rea- 
sons before  given.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  no  man  can  lawfully 
divest  himself  absolutely  of  his  personal  liberty,  for  any  consideration 
whatever. 

To  the  natural  rights  of  life,  property  and  liberty,  may  be  added  the 
right  of  coxsciExcE. 

By  this  is  meant  the  right  which  a  man  has  to  profess  his  own  opinions 
on  subjects  of  religion,  and  to  worship  God  in  the  mode  which  he  deems 
most  acceptable  to  him.  Whether  this,  however,  be  strictly  a  natural 
right,  like  the  three  above  mentioned,  may  be  a  subject  of  dispute,  for 
then  it  would  be  universal,  which  is,  perhaps,  carrying  the  point  too 
far.  The  matter  may  best  be  determined  by  considering  the  ground  of 
that  right,  which  differs  much  from  the  others  we  have  mentioned. 
The  right  to  life  results  both  from  the  appointment  of  God,  and  the  ab- 
sence of  a  superior  or  countervailing  right  in  another  to  deprive  us  of 
it,  until,  at  least,  we  forfeit  that  right  to  some  third  party,  by  some 

2 


540  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

voluntary  act  of  our  own,  This  also  applies  to  the  rights  of  property 
and  liberty.  The  right  of  professing  particular  religious  opinions,  and 
practising  a  particular  mode  of  worship,  can  only  rest  upon  a  convic- 
tion that  these  are  duties  enjoined  upon  us  by  God.  For  since  rehgion 
is  a  matter  which  concerns  man  and  God,  a  man  must  know  that  it  is 
obligatory  upon  him  as  a  duty,  and  under  fear  of  God's  displeasure,  to 
profess  his  opinions  openly,  and  to  practise  some  particular  mode  of 
worship. 

To  apply  this  to  the  case  of  persons  all  sincerely  receiving  the  Bible 
as  a  revelation  from  God.  Unquestionably  it  is  a  part  of  that  revela- 
tion, that  those  who  receive  its  doctrines  should  profess  and  attempt  to 
propagate  them  ;  nor  can  they  profess  them  in  any  other  way  than  they 
interpret  the  meaning  of  the  book  which  contains  them.  Equally  clear 
is  it,  that  the  worship  of  God  is  enjoined  upon  man,  and  that  publicly, 
and  in  collective  bodies.  From  these  circumstances,  therefore,  it  results, 
that  it  is  a  duty  which  man  owes  to  God  to  profess  and  to  endeavour  to 
propagate  his  honest  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to 
worship  God  in  the  mode  which  he  sincerely  conceives  is  made  obliga- 
tory upon  him,  by  the  same  sacred  volume.  It  is  from  this  duty  that 
the  right  of  conscience  flows,  and  from  this  alone  ;  and  it  thus  becomes 
a  right  of  that  nature  which  no  earthly  power  has  any  authority  to  ob- 
struct, because  it  can  have  no  power  to  alter  or  to  destroy  the  obliga- 
tions which  almighty  God,  the  supreme  governor,  has  laid  upon  his 
creatures. 

It  does  not,  however,  follow  from  this  statement,  that  human  govern- 
ments, professing  to  be  regulated  themselves  by  the  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity, have  no  authority  to  take  cognizance  of  the  manner  in  which 
this  right  of  conscience  is  exercised.  They  are  "  ordained  of  God"  to 
uphold  their  subjects  in  the  exercise  of  their  just  rights  respectively, 
and  that  without  partiality.  If,  therefore,  under  a  plea  of  conscience, 
one  sect  should  interfere  to  obstruct  others  in  a  peaceable  profession  of 
their  opinions,  and  a  peaceable  exercise  of  their  worship ;  or  should 
exercise  its  own  so  as  to  be  vexatiously  intrusive  upon  others,  and  in 
defiance  of  some  rival  sect ;  as  for  instance,  in  a  Protestant  country,  if 
Roman  Catholics  were  to  carry  the  objects  of  their  idolatry  about  the 
streets,  instead  of  contenting  themselves  with  worshipping  in  their  owq 
way,  in  their  own  chapels.  In  all  such  cases  the  government  might  be 
bound,  in  respect  of  the  rights  of  other  classes  of  its  subjects,  to  inter^ 
fere  by  restraint,  nor  would  it  then  trespass  upon  the  rights  of  conscience, 
justly  interpreted.  Again,  since  "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of 
God,"  for  '*  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well ;" 
which  evil  doing  and  well  doing  are  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the 
common  sense  and  agreement  of  manldnd,  and  plainly  refer  to  moral 
actions  only ;  should  any  sect  or  individual,  ignorantly,  fanatically,  or 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  541 

corruptly,  so  interpret  tiie  Scriptures  as  to  suppose  themselves  free  from 
moral  obligation,  and  then  proceed  to  practise  their  tenets  by  any  such 
acts  as  violate  the  laws  of  well-ordered  society,  or  by  admitting  inde- 
cencies into  their  modes  of  worship,  as  some  fanatics  in  former  times  who 
used  to  strip  themselves  naked  in  their  assemblies  ;  here  too  a  govern- 
ment would  have  the  right  to  disregard  the  plea  of  conscience  if  set  up, 
and  to  restrain  such  acts,  and  the  teachers  of  them,  as  pernicious  to 
society.  But  if  the  opinions  professed  by  any  sect,  however  erroneous 
they  may  be,  and  however  zealously  a  sound  and  faithful  Christian  might 
be  called  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  denounce  them  as  involving  a  coiTupt 
conscience,  or  no  conscience  at  all,  and  as  dangerous  or  fatal  to  the 
salvation  of  those  that  hold  them,  do  not  interfere  with  the  peace,  the 
morals,  and  good  order  of  society ;  it  is  not  within  the  province  of  a 
government  to  animadvert  upon  them  by  force  of  law  ;  since  it  was  not 
established  to  judge  of  men's  sincerity  in  religion,  nor  of  the  tendency 
of  opinions  as  they  affect  their  salvation,  but  only  to  uphold  the  morals 
and  good  order  of  the  community.  So,  likewise,  what  has  been  called 
by  some  worship,  has  been  sometimes  marked  with  great  excesses  of 
enthusiasm,  and  with  even  ridiculous  follies  ;  but  if  the  peace  of  others, 
and  the  morals  of  society,  are  not  thereby  endangered,  it  is  not  the  part 
of  the  magistracy  to  interfere,  at  least  by  authority. 

In  cases,  however,  where  political  opinions  are  connected  with  reli- 
gious notions,  and  the  plea  of  conscience  is  set  up  as  an  "  unalienable 
right,"  to  sanction  their  propagation,  a  government  may  be  justified  in 
interposing,  not  indeed  on  the  ground  that  it  judges  the  conscience  to  be 
erring  and  corrupt,  but  for  its  own  just  support  when  endangered  by  such 
opinions.  Sects  of  religious  republicans  have  sometimes  appeared  under  a 
monarchical  government, — the  Fifth  Monarchy  Fanatics,  for  instance, 
who,  according  to  their  interpretation  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  regarded 
the  existence  of  all  earthly  monarchies  as  inimical  to  it,  and  believing 
that  the  period  of  its  establishment  was  come,  thought  it  impiety  to  ac- 
knowledge any  earthly  sovereign,  as  being  contrary  to  their  allegiance 
to  Christ.  When  such  notions  are  confined  to  a  few  persons  it  is  wise 
in  a  government  to  leave  them  to  their  own  absurdities  as  their  most 
potent  cure  ;  but  should  a  fanaticism  of  this  kind  seize  upon  a  multitude, 
and  render  them  restless  and  seditious,  the  state  would  be  justifiable  in  re- 
straining them  by  force,  although  a  mistaken  conscience  might  be  mixed 
up  with  the  error.  We  may  therefore  conclude,  that  as  to  religious 
sects,  the  plea  of  conscience  does  not  take  their  conduct  out  of  the  cogni- 
zance of  the  civil  magistrate  when  the  peace,  the  morality,  and  safety 
of  society  are  infringed  upon  ;  but  that  otherwise,  the  rights  of  conscience 
are  inviolable,  even  when  it  is  obviously  erroneous,  and,  religiously  con- 
sidered, as  to  the  individual  dangerous.  The  case  then  is  one  which  is  to 
be  dealt  with  bv  instruction,  and  moral  suasion.     It  belongs  to  public' 

2 


542  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

instructers,  and  to  all  well-informed  persons,  to  connect  an  ignorant  and 
perverse  conscience,  by  friendly  and  compassionate  admonition  ;  and  the 
power  of  the  magistrate  is  only  lawfully  interposed,  when  the  effect 
complained  of  so  falls  upon  society  as  to  infringe  upon  the  rights  of 
others,  or  upon  the  public  morals  and  peace ;  but  even  then  the  facts 
ought  to  be  obvious,  and  not  constructive. 

The  case  of  those  who  reject  the  revelation  of  the  Scriptures  must  be 
considered  on  its  own  merits. 

Simple  Deism,  in  a  Christian  country,  may  lay  a  foundation  for 
such  a  plea  of  conscience  as  the  state  ought  to  admit,  although  it  should 
be  rejected  by  a  sound  theologian.  The  Deist  derives  his  religion  by 
inference  from  what  he  supposes  discoverable  of  the  attributes  and 
will  of  God  from  nature,  and  the  course  of  the  Divine  government. 
Should  he  conclude  that  among  such  indications  of  the  will  of  God  there 
are  those  which  make  it  his  duty  to  profess  his  opinions,  to  attack  the 
evidences  of  our  Divine  revelation  as  of  insufficient  proof,  and  to  worship 
God  in  a  manner  more  agreeable  to  his  system,  it  would  be  too  delicate 
an  interference  of  a  government  with  a  question  of  conscience,  to  be 
allowed  to  make  itself  the  judge  whether  any  such  conviction  could  be 
conscientiously  entertained ;  although  by  divines,  in  their  character  of 
public  instructers,  this  would  properly  be  denied.  Absolutely  to  shut 
out,  by  penal  laws,  all  discussion  on  the  evidences  of  Divine  revelation, 
would  probably  make  secret  infidels  in  such  numbers  as  would  more 
than  counterbalance  the  advantage  which  would  be  gained,  and  that  by 
the  suspicion  which  it  would  excite.  But  this  principle  would  not  ex- 
tend to  the  protection  of  any  doctrine  directly  subversive  of  justice, 
chastity,  or  humanity  ;  for  then  society  would  be  attacked,  and  the  natu- 
ral as  well  as  civil  rights  of  man  invaded.  Nor  can  opprobrious  and 
blasphemous  attacks  upon  Christianity  be  covered  by  a  plea  of  con- 
science and  right,  since  these  are  not  necessary  to  argument.  It  is  evident 
that  conscience,  in  the  most  liberal  construction  of  the  term,  cannot  be 
pleaded  in  their  behalf ;  and  they  are  not  innocent  even  as  to  society. 

To  those  systems  which  deny  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  con- 
sequently, a  state  of  future  retribution,  and  which  assume  any  of  the 
forms  of  Atheism,  no  toleration  can,  consistently  with  duty,  be  extended 
by  a  Christian  government.  The  reasons  of  this  exception  are,  1.  That 
the  very  basis  of  its  jurisprudence,  which  is  founded  upon  a  belief  in 
God,  the  sanctity  of  oaths,  and  a  future  state,  is  assaulted  by  such  doc- 
trines, and  that  it  cannot  co-exist  with  them  :  2.  That  they  are  subversive 
of  the  morals  of  the  people  :  and,  3.  That  no  conscience  can  be  pleaded 
by  their  votaries  for  the  avowal  of  such  tenets.  When  the  existence  of 
a  God  and  his  moral  government  are  denied,  no  conscience  can  exist  to 
require  the  publication  of  such  tenets  ;  for  this  cannot  be  a  duty  imposed 
upon  them  by  God,  since  they  deny  his  existence.  No  right  of  conscience 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  543 

is  therefore  violated  when  they  are  restrained  by  civil  penalties.  Such 
persons  cannot  have  the  advantages  of  society,  without  submitting  to  the 
principles  on  which  it  is  founded  ;  and  as  they  profess  to  believe  that  they 
are  not  accountable  beings,  their  silence  cannot  be  a  guilt  to  them ;  they 
give  up  the  argument  drawn  from  conscience,  and  from  its  rights,  which 
have  no  existence  at  eill  but  as  founded  upon  revealed  duty. 

The  second  branch  of  justice  we  have  denominated  economical  : 
it  respects  those  relations  which  grow  out  of  the  existence  of  men  in 
families. 

The  first  is  that  of  husband  and  wife,  and  arises  out  of  the  institution 
of  marriage. 

The  foundation  of  the  marriage  union  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  hu- 
man race  should  "  increase  and  multiply,"  but  only  through  a  chaste  and 
restricted  conjunction  of  one  man  and  one  woman,  united  by  their  free 
vows  in  a  bond  made  by  the  Divine  law  indissoluble,  except  by  death  or 
by  adultery.  The  will  of  God  as  to  marriage  is,  however,  general,  and 
is  not  so  expressed  as  to  lay  an  imperative  obligation  to  marry  upon 
every  one,  in  all  circumstances.  There  was  no  need  of  the  law  being 
directed  to  each  individual  as  such,  since  the  instincts  of  nature,  and  the 
affection  of  love  planted  in  human  beings,  were  sufficient  to  guarantee 
its  general  observance.  The  very  bond  of  marriage  too  being  the  pre- 
ference founded  upon  love,  rendered  the  act  one  in  which  choice  and 
feeling  were  to  have  great  influence  ;  nor  could  a  prudent  regard  to  cir- 
cumstances  be  excluded.  Cases  were  possible  in  which  such  a  prefer- 
ence as  is  essential  to  the  felicity  and  advantages  of  that  state  might  not 
be  excited,  nor  the  due  degree  of  affection  to  warrant  the  union  called 
forth.  There  might  be  cases  in  which  circumstances  might  be  inimical 
to  the  full  discharge  of  some  of  the  duties  of  that  state  ;  as  the  comfortable 
maintenance  of  a  wife,  and  a  proper  provision  for  children.  Some  indi- 
viduals would  also  be  called  by  Providence  to  duties  in  the  Church  and 
in  the  world,  which  might  better  be  performed  in  a  single  and  unfettered 
life ;  and  seasons  of  persecution,  as  we  are  taught  by  St.  Paul,  have 
rendered  it  an  act  of  Christian  prudence  to  abstain  even  from  this 
honourable  estate.  The  general  rule,  however,  is  in  favour  of  marriage  ; 
and  all  exceptions  seem  to  require  justification  on  some  principle  ground- 
ed upon  an  equal  or  a  paramount  obUgation. 

One  intention  of  marriage  in  its  original  institution  was  the  production 
of  the  greatest  number  of  healthy  children  ;  and  that  it  secures  this  ob- 
ject is  proved  from  the  universal  fact,  that  population  increases  more, 
and  is  of  better  quality,  where  marriage  is  established,  and  its  sacred  laws 
are  observed,  than  where  the  intercourse  of  the  sexes  is  promiscuous, 
A  second  end  was  the  establishment  of  the  interesting  and  influential 
relations  of  acknowledged  children  and  parents,  from  which  the  most 
endearing,  mehorating,  and  pure  aflJections  result  and  which  could  not 


644  riii;oLO(;u  AL  iNsrrn  tk5.  [ivvkt 

etxist  without  marriage.  It  is  inilotxi  scaively  possible  even  to  sketch  the 
niunervHis  and  important  etleets  ot"  this  sacred  institution,  Nvhich  at  once 
disphws  in  the  most  atlecting  mimner,  the  Divine  IxMievolence  and  the 
Divine  >\  isdom.  It  secuivs  the  preservation  ami  tender  nurture  of  chil- 
dren, bv  concentrating  an  atVection  upon  them,  vhich  is  dissipated  and 
kvst  wheivver  tbmication  pivvnils.  It  creates  conjugal  tenderness,  filial 
piety,  the  attachment  ot'  bi\>thei-s  and  sistei-s,  and  ot'  collateral  rela- 
tions. It  sotiens  the  teelings,  and  increases  the  benevolence  ot'  society 
at  larg^\  by  bringuig  all  these  atlections  to  operate  powert'uUy  witlun  each 
of  those  domestic  iuui  tamily  circles  ot*  which  society  is  composed.  It 
excites  industry  and  economy  ;  and  secures  the  conununication  of  moral 
knowledge,  and  the  inculcation  of  civility,  and  early  habits  of  submission 
to  authority,  by  which  men  are  tilted  to  Inx'ome  the  subjects  ot'a  public 
government,  and  m  ithoui  wliich,  perhaps,  no  government  could  be  sus- 
tained but  by  brute  torce,  or,  it  nniy  be,  not  sustiiined  at  idl.  These  ai*e 
some  of  the  innumerable  benetits  by  which  marriage  promotes  human 
happiness,  and  the  peace  and  strength  of  the  comnnuiity  at  large. 

'Vhe  institution  of  marriage  not  only  excludes  the  promiscuous  inter- 
course  of  the  sexes,  but  jK>lygamy  also  ;  a  practice  iilmost  equally  tatal 
to  the  kind  atfections,  to  education,  to  monvls,  and  to  purity.  The  argu- 
ment  of  our  Loi\l  with  the  Ph;uisees,  on  the  subject  of  divorce,  Matt. 
MX,  assumes  it  as  even  acknowkxlgiHl  by  the  Jews,  tliat  murriage  w  as 
not  only  of  Divine  institution,  but  that  it  consisted  in  the  union  of 
two  only, — "  tht'u  ttrain  shall  be  one  tlesh."  This  was  the  law  of  mar- 
riage given  at  first,  not  to  Adam  and  Eve  only,  but  prospectively  to  all 
their  descendants.  The  first  instance  of  polygj^mv  was  that  of  Lamech, 
and  this  has  no  sanction  tVom  the  Scripture;  which  may  be  observed  of 
other  instances  in  the  Old  Testament.  They  were  opposed  to  the  ori- 
gimU  law,  tuid  in  all  cases  appear  to  have  been  punished  with  many 
afflictive  visitations?.  The  Mosaic  law,  although  polygamy  appetirs  to 
have  been  practised  under  it,  gives  no  direct  counteuiuice  to  the  prac- 
tice :  which  intimates  that,  as  in  the  case  of  divorce,  the  connivance  wa^.^ 
i\ot  intendeil  to  displace  the  original  institution.  Hence,  in  the  liuiguage 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  of  the  New,  the  terms  husband  and 
wife  in  the  singular  lunnber  continually  occur;  and  a  passage  in  the 
Pu^phet  Malaclu  is  so  remarkable  as  to  warnuit  the  conclusion,  that 
-among  the  pious  Jews,  the  original  law  was  never  wholly  out  of  sight. 
**  Yet  ye  say,  Wheretbre  ?  Because  the  Lord  hath  been  witness  between 
thee,  and  the  wite  of  thy  youth,  agtiinst  whom  thou  hast  dealt  treache- 
rously, yet  she  is  thy  companion,  and  the  wite  of  thy  covenant.  And  did  not 
he  make  one  T'^^  one  woman  "> — "  Yet  had  he  the  residue  of  the  spirit?" 
— (and  therefore  could  have  made  more  than  one") — '•  And  wheretbre 
one  V  '*  'Hiat  he  might  seek  a  godlv  seed,"  is  tlie  answer,  which  strongly 
shows  how  closely  connected  m  the  prophet's  mmd  were  the  circumstances 


llilRD.]  THKOIX>CICAL    I^WTITI'TIW.  545 

of  piety  iji  Oie  oflfepriug  and  the  restraint  of  marriage  to  oo^  ^  ife  oirfy  ; 
for  he  thus  i^lnnctm  at  one  of  the  obvK>ii»  evils  of  [xAyg^any,  iia  deterio- 
T'dXiug  mordil  influence  u[K.>n  ehdfirau.  If^  however,  ia  isorae  irmtarice* 
the  \)n/:X\(ji  of  the  iew»<  fell  ifaort  of  thie  j!*rictrie«H  of  tfie  origiiiaJ  law 
of  roi^rrhxiih,  tliat  law  Lh  doit  fuUy  Tf:^)T(A  by  Chri»t.  In  a  dwcounie 
with  tlie  VharvniCfii  he  n^X  orJy  re-^;na/:tJj  tli^it  law,  l>»it  ^lardH  'diputiMi 
it«  evasion  by  the  practKXi  of  divorce ;  aiid  TixmrVi  tlie  rriarriage  uokxi 
to  be  indissoluble  by  arjy  tijing  l^jt  adultery.  'IVi  'dr^iuv^A  of  our 
Lord  ill  this  d^AAirm  in,  indeed,  equally  concluwve  agatoKt  j:>oIyganiy  and 
against  the  practice  of  divorce;  for  "if,"  Bay«  Dr.  Paley,  «  wl*oe%'er 
putteth  awa)'  his  wife  and  rnarri*:^h  ariother  r^maniiUdh  adulter)',  be 
who  rriarrietjj  another,  the  first  wife  l>eing  living,  iw  no  less  g>jilty  of 
adultery ;  because  the  adultery  do*:«  not  consist  in  the  repudiation  of 
the  first  wife ;  for,  however  cruel  and  tirijuM  tiiat  nrtay  be,  it  is  not  aduU 
ter)' ;  but  in  enUiring  int/j  a  second  marriage,  during  the  legal  existence 
and  obligation  of  the  firot." 

Nature  it/self  comes  in  ab>o  a;  a  ^y^nfirmatirw  of  this  original  law. — 
In  birtlis,  there  i«  a  feraall  surjjlujiage  of  males  over  females ;  which^ 
l^ing  T<A\if:A-A  by  the  more  precarioJis  life  of  males,  aiid  by  the  acci- 
dents to  which  more  tlian  fenxales  they  are  expf.^«ed  from  wars  and 
dangerous  empJojTnentg,  brings  the  num\jfir  of  males  and  ffintaileii  to  a 
par,  and  shows  that  in  the  order  of  Providence  a  man  o«i|^it  to  have 
but  one  wife ;  and  that  where  polygamy  is  not  allowed,  every  woman  may 
liave  a  hiisband.  This  equality,  too,  is  found  in  all  co^intrieB ;  although 
some  licentious  writers  liave  attempted  to  deny  it  upon  un»o>ind  evideoce. 

Ariother  end  of  nriarriage  was,  the  prevention  of  fomicaticHi ;  and  as 
tl^iis  is  done,  not  wily  by  providing  for  a  lawful  gratificatiwi  of  the  iiex- 
ual  appetite  ;  Ixit  more  especially  by  that  mutual  affection  opoo  wiuck 
marriages,  when  contracted  according  to  the  wiU  of  God,  arc  foaniedt 
this  conjunction  nece«j«arily  n^quires  that  degree  of  lore  betweeo  ^ 
contracting  parties  which  produces  a  preference  of  each  other  above 
evf^r,'  man  or  woman  in  the  world.  Wherever  tljis  degree  of  afiectioii 
Cfje^  fiot  exist,  it  rrtay  therefore  Ije  concluded  tliat  the  right  of  majriage 
ir  profaned,  and  the  greatest  security  for  the  aceomptiahmeat  of  its 
rnordl  ends  weakened  or  destroyed.  Interest,  compBance  wifii  the 
vjfiws  of  family  connections,  caprice,  or  corporal  attractions,  it  may 
be  therefore  concluded,  are  not  in  themsdves  lawful  grottods  of  mar- 
nage,  as  tending,  withovt  Section,  to  frustrate  the  iotentioo  of  God  in 
Its  institution ;  to  which  end  all  are  booud  to  subfeet  fbemseiirea.  0a 
the  other  hand,  since  love  is  ofieo  a  ddusi^e  and-sickfy  a£fectioOy 
exceedingly  temporary  and  uncertain,  wbeo  it  is  oDeoooected  with  jodg- 
ment  and  prudence  ;  and  also  because  marriages  are  fiir  tbe  most  pait 
contracted  by  the  young  and  inezperieoced,  wbose  passions  axe  then 
stron^^est  wbrai  their  judgmeotB  are  most  immature;  in  no  step  ie 

Vol.  II.  35 


546  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

life  is  the  counsel  of  others  more  necessary,  and  in  no  case  ought  it 
to  be  sought  with  greater  dociUty  than  in  this.  A  proper  respect  to  the 
circumstances  of  age,  fitness,  &c,  ought  never  to  be  superseded  by  the 
plea  of  mere  affection  ;  although  no  circumstances  can  justify  marriage 
without  that  degree  of  affection  which  produces  an  absolute  preference. 
Whether  marriage  be  a  civil  or  a  rehgious  contract  has  been  a  subject 
of  dispute.  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  it  is  both.  It  has  its  engage- 
ments  to  men,  and  its  vows  to  God.  A  Christian  state  recognizes  mar- 
riage as  a  branch  of  public  morality,  and  a  source  of  civil  peace  and 
strength.  It  is  connected  with  the  peace  of  society  by  assigning  one 
woman  to  one  man,  and  the  state  protects  him,  therefore,  in  her  exclu- 
sive possession.  Christianity,  by  allowing  divorce  in  the  event  of  adul- 
tery, supposes,  also,  that  the  crime  must  be  proved  by  proper  evidence 
before  the  civil  magistrate ;  and  lest  divorce  should  be  the  result  of 
unfounded  suspicion,  or  be  made  a  cover  for  license,  the  decision  of 
the  case  could  safely  be  lodged  nowhere  else.  Marriage,  too,  as 
placing  one  human  being  more  completely  under  the  power  of  another 
than  any  other  relation,  requires  laws  for  the  protection  of  those  who 
are  thus  so  exposed  to  injury.  The  distribution  of  society  into  families, 
also,  can  only  be  an  instrument  for  promoting  the  order  of  the  commu- 
nity, by  the  cognizance  which  the  law  takes  of  the  head  of  a  family, 
and  by  making  him  responsible,  to  a  certain  extent,  for  the  conduct  of 
those  under  his  influence.  Questions  of  property  are  also  involved  in 
marriage  and  its  issue.  The  law  must,  therefore,  for  these  and  many 
other  weighty  reasons,  be  cognizant  of  marriage  ;  must  prescribe  various 
regulations  respecting  it ;  require  publicity  of  the  contract ;  and  guard 
some  of  the  great  injunctions  of  religion  in  the  matter  by  penalties.  In 
no  well  ordered  state  can  marriage,  therefore,  be  so  exclusively  left  to 
reUgion  as  to  shut  out  the  cognizance  and  control  of  the  state.  But 
then  those  who  would  have  the  whole  matter  to  lie  between  the  parties 
themselves,  and  the  civil  magistrate,  appear  wholly  to  forget  that  mar- 
riage is  a  solemn  rehgious  act,  m  which  vows  are  made  to  God  by  both 
persons,  who,  when  the  right  is  properly  understood,  engage  to  abide 
by  all  those  laws  with  which  he  has  guarded  the  institution ;  to  love  and 
cherish  each  other ;  and  to  remain  faithful  to  each  other  until  death. — 
For  if,  at  least,  they  profess  behef  in  Christianity,  whatever  duties  are 
laid  upon  husbands  and  wives  in  Holy  Scripture,  they  engage  to  obey, 
by  the  very  act  of  their  contracting  marriage.  The  question,  then,  is 
whether  such  vows  to  God  as  are  necessarily  involved  in  marriage,  are 
to  be  left  between  the  parties  and  God  privately,  or  whether  they  ought 
to  be  pubUcly  made  before  his  ministers  and  the  Church.  On  this  the 
Scriptures  are  silent;  but  though  Michaelis  has  showed,  {Commentaries 
on  the  Laws  of  MoseSy)  that  the  priests  under  the  law  were  not  appointed 
to  celebrate  marriage ;  yet  in  the  practice  of  the  modern  Jews,  it  is  a 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  547 

religious  ceremony,  the  chief  rabbi  of  the  synagogue  being  present,  and 
prayers  being  appointed  for  the  occasion.  [Allen's  Modern  Judaism.) 
This  renders  it  probable  that  the  character  of  the  ceremony  under  the 
law,  from  the  most  ancient  times,  was  a  religious  one.  The  more 
direct  connection  of  marriage  with  religion  in  Christian  states,  by 
assigning  its  celebration  to  the  ministers  of  rehgion,  appears  to  be  a 
very  beneficial  custom,  and  one  which  the  state  has  a  right  to  enjoin. 
For  since  the  welfare  and  morals  of  society  are  so  much  interested  in 
the  performance  of  the  mutual  duties  of  the  married  state ;  and  since 
those  duties  have  a  religious  as  well  as  a  civil  character,  it  is  most  pro- 
per that  some  provision  should  be  made  for  explaining  those  duties; 
and  for  this  a  standing  form  of  marriage  is  best  adapted.  By  acts  of 
religion,  also,  they  are  more  solemnly  impressed  upon  the  parties. — 
When  this  is  prescribed  in  any  state,  it  becomes  a  ChristiEin  cheerfully, 
and  even  thankfully,  to  comply  with  a  custom  of  so  important  a  tendency, 
as  matter  of  conscientious  subjection  to  lawful  authority,  although  no 
Scriptural  precept  can  be  pleaded  for  it.  That  the  ceremony  should  be 
confined  to  the  clergy  of  an  established  Church  is  a  different  considera- 
tion. We  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  rehgious  effect  would  be  greater, 
were  the  ministers  of  each  religious  body  to  be  authorized  by  the  state 
to  celebrate  marriages  among  their  own  people,  due  provision  being 
made  f^r  the  regular  and  secure  registry  of  them,  and  to  prevent  the  civil 
laws  respecting  marriage  from  being  evaded. 

W^hen  this  important  contract  is  once  made,  then  certain  rights  are 
acquired  by  the  parties  mutually,  who  are  also  bound  by  reciprocal 
duties,  in  the  fulfilment  of  which  the  practical  "  righteousness"  of  each 
consists.  Here,  also,  the  superior  character  of  the  morals  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  well  as  their  higher  authority,  is  illustrated.  It  may, 
indeed,  be  within  the  scope  of  mere  moralists  to  show  that  fidehty,  and 
aflfection,  and  all  the  courtesies  necessary  to  maintain  affection,  are 
rationally  obhgatory  upon  those  who  are  connected  by  the  nuptial  bond  ; 
but  in  Christianity  that  fidelity  is  guarded  by  the  express  law,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  commit  adulteiy ;"  and  by  our  Lord's  exposition  of  the  spirit 
of  that  law,  which  forbids  the  indulgence  of  loose  thoughts  and  desires, 
and  places  the  purity  of  the  heart  under  the  guardianship  of  that  hal- 
lowed fear  which  his  authority  tends  to  inspire.  Affection,  too,  is  made 
a  matter  of  dihgent  cultivation  upon  considerations,  and  by  a  standard, 
peculiar  to  our  rehgion.  Husbands  are  placed  in  a  relation  to  their 
wives,  similar  to  that  which  Christ  bears  to  his  Church,  and  his  exam- 
ple is  thus  made  their  rule  :  as  Christ  "  gave  himself,"  liis  hfe,  "  for  the 
Church,"  Eph.  v,  25,  so  are  they  to  hazEird  hfe  for  their  wives.  As  Christ 
.saves  his  Church,  so  is  it  the  bounden  duty  of  husbands  to  endeavour,  by 
every  possible  means,  to  promote  the  religious  edification  and  salvation  of 
their  wives.  The  connection  is  thus  exalted  into  a  religious  one ;  and  when 


548 


THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES. 


[part 


love  which  knows  no  abatement,  protection  at  the  hazard  of  Ufe,  and  a  ten- 
der and  constant  soUcitude  for  the  salvation  of  a  wife,  are  thus  enjoined,  the 
greatest  possible  security  is  established  for  the  exercise  of  kindness  and 
fidelity.  The  oneness  of  this  union  is  also  more  forcibly  stated  in  Scrip- 
ture than  any  where  beside  :  "  They  twain  shall  be  one  flesh."  "  So 
ought  men  to  love  their  wives  as  their  own  bodies ;  he  that  loveth  his 
wife  loveth  himself.  For  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh,  but 
nourisheth  and  cherisheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the  Church."  Precept 
and  illustration  can  go  no  higher  than  this ;  and  nothing  evidently  is 
wanting  either  of  direction  or  authority  to  raise  the  state  of  marriage 
into  the  highest,  most  endearing,  and  sanctified  relation  in  which  two 
human  beings  can  stand  to  each  other.  The  duties  of  wives  are  reci- 
procal to  those  of  husbands.      The  outline  in  the  note  below  (2)  com- 


(2)  PARTICULAR  DUTIES  OF  WIVES. 

Subjection,  the   generall   head  of  all 

wives  duties. 
Acknowledgment  of  an  husbands  su- 

perioritie. 

Adue  esteeme  of  her  owne  husband  as 
the  best  for  her,  and  worthy  of  ho- 
nour on  her  part. 

An  inward  wive-like  fear. 

An  outward  reverend  carriage  toward 
her  husband,  which  consisteth  in  a 
wive-like  sobrietie,  mildnesse,  cur- 
tissie,  and  modestie  in  apparel. 

Reverend  speech  to  and  of  her   hus- 

band. 
Obedience.- 


Forbearing  to  do  without,  or  against 
her  husbands  consent,  such  things  as 
he  hath  power  to  order,  as,  to  dis- 
pose and  order  the  common  goods  of 
the  familie,  and  the  allowance  for  it, 
or  children,  servants,  cattell,  guests, 
journies,  «fcc. 

A  ready  yielding  to  what  her  husband 
would  have  done.  This  is  manifested 
by  a  willingnesse  to  dwell  where  he 
will,  to  come  when  he  calls,  and  to  do 
what  he  requireth. 

A  patient  bearing  of  any  reproofe,  and 
a  ready  redressing  of  that  for  which 
she  is  justly  reproved. 


PARTICULAR  DUTIES  OF  HUSBANDS. 

Wisdom  and  love,  the  generall  heads  of 
all  husbands  duties. 

Acknowledgment  of  a  wives  neere  con- 
junction and  fellowship  with  her  hus- 
band. 

A  good  esteeme  of  his  own  wife  as  the 
best  for  him,  and  worthy  of  love  on 
his  part. 

An  inward  intire  affection. 

An  outward  amiable  carriage  toward 
his  wife,  which  consisteth  in  an  hus- 
band-like gravity,  mildnesse,  cour- 
teous acceptance  of  her  curtissie, 
and  allowing  her  to  wear  fit  apparel. 

Mild  and  loving  speech  to  and  of  his 
wife. 

A  wise  maintaining  his  authority,  and 
forbearing  to  exact  all  that  is  in  his 
power. 

A  ready  yielding  to  his  wives  request, 
and  giving  a  generall  consent  and 
libertie  unto  her  to  order  the  affaires 
of  the  house,  children,  servants,  &c. 
And  a  free  allowing  her  something 
to  bestow  as  she  seeth  occasion. 

A  forbearing  to  exact  more  than  his 
wife  is  willing  to  doe,  or  to  force  her 
to  dwell  where  it  is  not  meet,  or  to 
enjoy ne  her  to  do  things  that  are 
unmeet  in  themselves,  or  against  her 
mind. 

A  wise  ordering  of  reproofe,  not  using 
it  without  just  and  weighty  cause, 
and  then  privately,  and  meekly. 


THIRD.] 


THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES. 


549 


prises  both :   it  presents  a   series  of  obligations  which  are  obviously 
drawn  from  the  New  Testament ;  but  which  nothing  except  that  could 


Contentment  with  her  husbands  pre- 

sent  estate. 
Such  a  subjection  as  may  stand  with 

her  subjection  to  Christ. 
Such  a  subjection  as  the  Church  yield- 

eth  to  Christ,  which  is  sincere,  pure, 

cheerful,    constant,    for   conscience 

sake. 


A  provident  care  for  his  wife,  accord- 
ing to  his  abilities. 

A  forbearing  to  exact  any  thing  which 
stands  not  with  a  good  conscience. 

Such  a  love  as  Christ  beareth  to  the 
Church,  and  man  to  himselfe,  which 
is  first  free,  in  deed  and  truth,  pure, 
chaste,  constant. 


ABERRATIONS  OF  WIVES  FROM  THEIR  PAR- 
TICULAR  DUTIES. 

Ambition,  the  generall  ground  of  the 
aberrations  of  wives. 

A  conceit  that  wives  are  their  husbands 

equals. 
A  conceit  that  she  could  better  subject 

herselfe  to  any  other  man  than  to  her 

own  husband. 
An  inward  despising  of  her  husband. 

Unreverend  behaviour  toward  her  hus- 
band, manifested  by  lightnesse,  sul- 
lennesse,  seomefulnesse,  and  vanity 
in  her  attire. 

Unreverend  speech  to  and  of  her  hua- 
band. 

A  stout  standing  on  her  owne  will. 

A  peremptory  undertaking  to  do  things 
as  she  list,  without  and  against  her 
husbands  consent.  This  is  mani- 
fested by  privy  purloyning  his  goods, 
taking  allowance,  ordering  children, 
servants,  and  cattell,  feasting  stran- 
gers,  making  journies  and  vows,  as 
herselfe  listeth. 

An  obstinate  standing  upon  her  owne 
will,  making  her  husband  dwell 
where  she  will,  and  refusing  to  goe 
when  he  calls,  or  to  doe  any  thing 
upon  his  command. 

Disdaine  at  reproofe :  giving  word  for 
word :  and  waxing  worse  for  being 
reproved. 


ABERRATIONS    OF    HUSBANDS    FROM   THEIR 
PARTICULAR  DUTIES. 

Want  of  wisdome  and  love,  the  generall 
grounds  of  the  aberrations  of  hus- 
bands. 

Too  mean  account  of  wives. 

A  preposterous  conceit  of  his  owne  wife 
to  be  the  worst  of  all,  and  that  he 
could  love  any  but  her. 

A  stoicall  disposition,  without  all  heat 
of  affection. 

An  unbeseeming  carriage  toward  bis 
wife,  manifested  by  his  baseness,  ty. 
rannicall  usage  of  her  loftinesse, 
rashnesse,  and  niggardlinesse. 

Harsh,  proud,  and  bitter  speeches  to 
and  of  his  w^ife. 

Losing  of  his  authority. 

Too  much  strictnesse  over  his  wife. — 
This  is  manifested  by  restraining  her 
from  doing  any  thing  without  parti- 
cular and  expresse  consent,  taking 
too  strict  account  of  her,  and  allow, 
ing  her  no  more  than  is  needfull  for 
her  owne  private  use. 

Too  lordly  a  standing  upon  the  highest 
step  of  his  authority :  being  too  fre- 
quent  insolent,  and  peremptory  in 
commanding  things  frivolous,  un- 
meet, and  agaiinst  his  wifes  minde 
and  conscience. 

Rashnesse  and  bitternesse  in  reprov- 
ing:  and  that  too  frequently  on 
slight  occasions,  and  disgracefully 
before  children,  servants,  and  stran- 
gers. 

2 


550  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

furnish.  The  extract  is  made  from  an  old  writer,  and  although  ex- 
pressed  in  homely  phrase  will  be  admired  for  discrimination  and  com- 
prehensiveness. 

The  duties  of  children  is  a  branch  of  Christian  morahty  which 
receives  both  illustration  and  authority  in  a  very  remarkable  and  pecu- 
bar  manner  from  the  Scriptures.  "  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother," 
is  a  precept  which  occupies  a  place  in  those  tables  of  law  which  were 
written  at  first  by  the  finger  of  God ;  and  is,  as  the  Apostle  Paul  notes, 
"  the  first  commandment  with  promise."  The  meaning  of  the  term 
hoJiour  is  comprehensive,  and  imports,  as  appears  from  various  passages 
in  which  it  occurs,  reverence,  affection,  and  grateful  obedience.  It 
expresses  at  once  a  principle  and  a  feeling,  each  of  which  must  influ- 
ence the  practice ;  one  binding  obedience  upon  the  conscience,  the 
other  rendering  it  the  free  effusion  of  the  heart ;  one  securing  the  great 
points  of  duty,  and  the  other  giving  rise  to  a  thousand  tender  sentiments 
and  courtesies  which  mutually  meliorate  the  temper,  and  open  one  of 
the  richest  sources  of  domestic  felicity. 

^he  honouring  of  parents  is  likewise  enforced  in  Scripture,  by  a 
temporal  promise.  This  is  not  peculiar  to  the  law;  for  when  the 
apostle  refers  to  this  "  as  the  first  commandment  with  promise,"  and 
adds,  "  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  that  thou  mayest  live  long  on 
the  earth,"  Eph.  vi,  3,  4,  he  clearly  intimates  that  this  promise  is  car- 
ried forward  into  the  Christian  dispensation ;  and  though  it  is  undoubt- 
edly modified  by  the  circumstances  of  an  economy  which  is  not  so 
much  founded  upon  temporal  promises  as  the  law,  it  retains  its  fiill 
force  as  a  general  declaration  of  special  favour  on  the  part  of  God. 
This  duty  also  derives  a  most  influential  and  affecting  illustration  from 
the  conduct  of  our  Lord,  who  was  himself  an  instance  of  subjection  to 
parents  ;  of  the  kindest  behaviour  to  them  ;  and  who,  amidst  his  agonies 
on  the  cross,  commended  his  weeping  mother  to  the  special  regard  of 
the  beloved  disciple,  John,  charging  him  with  her  care  and  support  as 
a  "  son,"  in  his  own  stead.  In  no  system  of  mere  ethics,  certainly,  is 
this  great  duty,  on  which  so  much  of  human  interest  and  felicity  de- 
pends, and  which  exerts  so  much  influence  upon  society,  thus  illustrated, 
and  thus  enforced. 

Discontent  at  her  husbands  estate.  A  carelesse  neglect  of  his  wife,  and 

niggardly  dealing  with  her,  and  that 
in  her  weaknesse. 
Such  a  pleasing  of  her  husband  as  of-       A  commanding  of  unlawfull  things, 

fendeth  Christ. 
Such  a  subjection  as    is  most  unlike       Such  a  disposition  as  is  most  unlike 
to  the  Church's,  viz.  fained,  forced,  to  Christ's,  and  to  that  which  a  man 

fickle,  &c.  beareth  to  himselfe,  viz.  compliment, 

impure,  for  by  respects,  inconstant, 
&c. 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  551 

The  duties  of  children  may  be  thus  sketched. 

Love,  whicli  is  founded  upon  esteem  and  reverence,  comprises  grati- 
tude also  ;  no  small  degree  of  which  is  obligatory  upon  every  child  for 
the  unwearied  cares,  labours,  and  kindness  of  parental  affection.  In 
the  few  unhappy  instances  in  which  esteem  for  a  parent  can  have  little 
place,  gratitude,  at  least,  ought  to  remain ;  nor  can  any  case  arise  in 
which  the  obhgation  o^  filial  love  can  be  cancelled. 

Reverexce,  which  consists  in  that  honourable  esteem  of  parents 
which  children  ought  to  cherish  in  their  hearts,  and  from  which  springs 
on  the  one  hand  the  desire  to  please,  and  on  the  other  the  fear  to  offend. 
The  fear  of  a  child  is,  however,  opposed  to  the  fear  of  a  slave  ;  the 
latter  has  respect  chiefly  to  the  punishment  which  may  be  inflicted ; 
but  the  other  being  mixed  with  love,  and  the  desire  to  be  loved,  has 
respect  to  the  offence  which  may  be  taken  by  a  parent,  his  grief,  and 
his  displeasure.  Hence  the  fear  of  God,  as  a  grace  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
regenerate,  is  compared  to  the  fear  of  children.  This  reverential  regard 
due  to  parents  has  its  external  expression  in  all  honour  and  civihty, 
whether  in  words  or  actions.  The  behaviour  is  to  be  submissive,  the 
speech  respectful,  reproof  is  to  be  borne  by  them  with  meekness,  and 
the  impatience  of  parents  sustained  in  silence.  Children  are  bound  to 
close  their  eyes  as  much  as  possible  upon  the  failings  and  infirmities  of 
the  authors  of  their  being,  and  always  to  speak  of  them  honourably 
among  themselves,  and  in  the  presence  of  others.  "  The  hearts  of  all 
men  go  along  with  Noah  in  laying  punishment  upon  Ham  for  his  unna- 
tural £uid  profane  derision,  and  love  the  memory  of  those  sons  that 
would  not  see  themselves,  nor  suffer  others  to  be  the  witnesses  of  the 
miscarriages  of  their  father."  In  the  duty  of  "  honouring"  parents,  is 
also  included  their  support  when  in  necessity.  This  appears  from  our 
Lord's  application  of  this  commandment  of  the  law  in  his  reproof  of  the 
Pharisees,  who,  if  they  had  made  a  vow  of  their  property,  thought  it 
then  lawful  to  withhold  assistance  from  their  parents,  Matt,  xv,  4-6. 

To  affection  and  reverence,  is  to  be  added. 

Obedience,  which  is  universal :  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  all 
things ;"  with  only  one  restriction,  which  respects  the  consciences  of 
children,  when  at  age  to  judge  for  themselves.  The  apostle  therefore 
adds,  "  in  the  Lord.^^  That  this  limits  the  obedience  of  children  to  the 
lawful  commands  of  parents,  is  clear  also  from  our  Lord's  words,  "  If 
any  love  father  or  mother  more  than  me  he  is  not  worthy  of  me."  God 
is  to  be  loved  and  obeyed  above  all.  In  all  lawful  things  the  rule  is 
absolute ;  and  the  obedience,  like  that  we  owe  to  God,  ought  to  be 
cheerful  and  unwearied.  Should  it  chance  to  cross  our  inclinations,  this 
will  be  no  excuse  for  hesitancy,  much  less  for  refusal. 

One  of  the  principal  cases  in  which  this  principle  is  oflen  most 
severely  tried,  is  that  of  marriage.     The  general  rule  clearly  is,  that 

2 


552  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

neither  son  nor  daughter  ought  to  marry  against  the  command  of  a 
father,  with  whom  the  prime  authority  of  the  family  is  lodged ;  nor  even 
without  the  consent  of  the  mother,  should  the  father  be  willing,  if  she 
can  find  any  weighty  reason  for  her  objection  ;  for,  although  the  autho- 
rity of  the  nnother  is  subordinate  and  secondary,  yet  is  she  entitled  to 
obedience  ffom  the  child,  There  is,  however,  a  considerable  difference 
between  marrying  at  the  command  of  a  parent,  and  marrying  against 
his  prohibition.  In  the  first  case,  children  are  more  at  liberty  than  in 
the  other ;  yet  even  here,  the  wishes  of  parents  in  this  respect  are  to 
be  taken  into  most  serious  consideration,  with  a  preponderating  desire  to 
yield  to  them :  but  if  a  child  feels  that  his  affections  still  refuse  to  run 
in  the  course  of  the  parents'  wishes ;  if  he  is  conscious  that  he  cannot 
love  his  intended  wife  "  as  himself,"  as  "  his  own  flesh;"  he  is  prohi- 
bited by  a  higher  rule,  which  presents  an  insuperable  barrier  to  his  com- 
pliance. In  this  case  the  child  is  at  liberty  to  refuse,  if  it  is  done 
deliberately,  and  expressed  with  modesty  and  proper  regret  at  not  being 
a.ble  to  comply,  for  the  reasons  stated ;  and  every  parent  ought  to  dis- 
pense  freely  with  the  claim  of  obedience.  But  to  marry  in  opposition 
to  a  parent's  express  prohibition,  is  a  very  grave  case.  The  general 
rule  lies  directly  against  this  act  of  disobedience,  as  against  all  others, 
and  the  violation  of  it  is  therefore  sin.  And  what  blessing  can  be 
expected  to  follow  such  marriages  ?  or  rather,  what  curse  may  not  be 
feared  to  follow  them  ?  The  law  of  God  is  transgressed,  and  the  image 
of  his  authority  in  parents  is  despised.  Those  exceptions  to  this  rule 
which  can  be  justified,  are  very  few. 

In  no  case  but  where  the  parties  have  attained  the  full  legal  age  of 
twenty-one  years,  ought  an  exception  to  be  even  considered ;  but  it  may 
perhaps  be  allowed,  1.  When  the  sole  objection  of  the  parent  is  the 
marriage  of  his  child  with  a  person  fearing  God.  2.  When  the  sole 
reason  given  is,  a  wish  to  keep  a  child  unmarried  from  caprice,  interest, 
or  other  motive,  which  no  parent  has  a  right  to  require,  when  the  child 
is  of  legal  age.  3.  When  the  objections  are  simply  those  of  prejudice, 
without  reasonable  ground ;  but  in  this  case,  the  child  ought  not  to 
assume  to  be  the  sole  judge  of  the  parent's  reasons ;  and  would  not  be 
at  liberty  to  act,  unless  supported  by  the  opinion  of  impartial  and  judi- 
cious friends,  whose  advice  and  mediation  ought  to  be  asked,  in  order 
that,  in  so  delicate  an  affair,  he  or  she  may  proceed  with  a  clear  con- 
science. 

The  persuading  a  daughter  to  elope  from  her  parents'  house,  where 
the  motive  is  no  other  than  the  wilful  following  of  personal  affection, 
which  spurns  at  parental  control  and  authority,  must,  therefore,  be  con- 
sidered  as  a  great  crime.  It  induces  the  daughter  to  commit  a  very 
criminal  act  of  disobedience  ;  and,  on  the  part  of  the  man,  it  is  a  worse 
kind  of  felony  than  stealing  the  property  of  another,  "  For  children  are 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  553 

much  more  properly  a  man's  own  than  his  goods,  and  the  more  highly 
to  be  esteemed,  by  how  much  reasonable  creatures  are  to  be  preferred 
before  senseless  things."  {Gouge  on  Relative  Duties.) 

The  duties  of  parents  are  exhibited  with  equal  clearness  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  contain  a  body  of  most  important  practical  instructions. 

The  first  duty  is  love,  which,  although  a  natural  instinct,  is  yet  to  be 
cultivated  and  nourished  by  Christians  under  a  sense  of  duty,  and  by 
frequent  meditation  upon  all  those  important  and  interesting  relations  in 
which  religion  has  placed  them  and  their  offspring.  The  duty  of  sus- 
tentation  anct  care,  therefore,  under  the  most  trying  circumstances,  is 
imperative  upon  parents ;  for,  though  this  is  not  directly  enjoined,  it  is 
supposed  necessarily  to  follow  from  that  parental  love  which  the  Scrip- 
tures inculcate ;  and  also,  because  the  denial  of  either  to  infants  would 
destroy  them,  and  thus  the  unnatural  parent  would  be  involved  in  the 
crime  of  murder. 

To  this  follows  instruction,  care  for  the  mind  succeeding  the  nou- 
rishment and  care  of  the  body.  This  relates  to  the  providing  such  an 
education  for  children  as  is  suited  to  their  condition,  and  by  which  they 
may  be  fitted  to  gain  a  reputable  liveUhood  when  they  are  of  age  to  ap- 
ply themselves  to  business.  But  it  specially  relates  to  their  instruction 
in  the  doctrines  of  Holy  Writ.  This  is  clearly  what  the  Apostle  Paul 
means,  Eph.  vi,  4,  by  directing  parents  to  "  bring  them  up  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  A  parent  is  considered  in  Scripture 
as  a  PRIEST  in  his  own  family,  which  is  a  view  of  this  relation  not  to  be 
found  in  ethical  writers,  or  deducible  from  any  principles  from  which 
they  would  infer  parental  duties,  independently  of  revelation  ;  and  from 
this  it  derives  a  most  exalted  character.  The  offices  of  sacrifice,  inter- 
cession, and  religious  instruction,  were  all  performed  by  the  patriarchs ; 
and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  although,  under  the  law,  the  offering  of 
sacrifices  was  restrained  to  the  appointed  priesthood,  yet  was  it  still  the 
duty  of  the  head  of  the  family  to  bring  his  sacrifices  for  immolation  in 
the  prescribed  manner  ;  and  so  far  was  the  institution  of  public  teachers 
from  being  designed  to  supersede  the  father's  office,  that  the  heads  of 
the  Jewish  families  were  specially  enjoined  to  teach  the  law  to  their 
children  diligently,  and  daily,  Deut.  vi,  7.  Under  the  same  view  does 
Christianity  regard  the  heads  of  its  famihes,  as  priests  in  their  houses, 
offering  spiritual  gifts  and  sacrifices,  and  as  the  religious  instructers  of 
their  children.  Hence  it  is,  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  that  "  fathers" 
are  commanded  "  to  bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admoni- 
tion of  the  Lord  ;"  or,  in  other  words,  in  the  knowledge  of  the  doctrines, 
duties,  motives,  and  hopes  of  the  Christian  religion.  This  is  a  work, 
therefore,  which  belongs  to  the  very  office  of  a  father  as  the  priest  of 
his  household,  and  cannot  be  neglected  by  him,  but  at  his  own,  and  his 
children's  peril.     Nor  is  it  to  be  occasionally  and  cursorily  performed, 

2 


554  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

but  so  that  the  object  may  be  attained,  namely,  that  they  may  "  know 
the  Scriptures  from  their  childhood,"  and  have  stored  their  minds  with 
their  laws,  and  doctrines,  and  promises,  as  their  guide  in  future  life ;  a 
work  which  will  require,  at  least,  as  much  attention  from  the  Christian 
as  from  the  Jewish  parent,  who  was  commanded  on  this  wise, — "  Thou 
shalt  teach  them  diligently  to  thy  children,  and  thou  shalt  talk  of  them 
when  thou  sittest  in  thy  house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way,  when 
thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up."  The  practice  of  the  Jews 
in  this  respect,  appears  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  Christians  of  the 
primitive  Churches,  which  were  composed  of  both  Jewish  and  Gentile 
converts  in  almost  every  place ;  and  from  them  it  is  probable  that  the 
early  customs  of  teaching  children  to  commit  portions  of  Scripture  to 
memory,  to  repeat  prayers  night  and  morning,  and  to  approach  their 
parents  for  their  blessing,  might  be  derived.  The  last  pleasing  and  im- 
pressive form,  which  contains  a  recognition  of  the  domestic  priesthood, 
as  inherent  in  the  head  of  any  family,  has  in  this  country  grown  of  late 
into  disuse,  which  is  much  to  be  regretted. 

It  is  also  essential  to  the  proper  discharge  of  the  parental  duty  of  in- 
structing children,  that  every  means  should  be  used  to  render  what  is 
taught  influential  upon  the  heart  and  conduct.  It  is,  therefore,  solemnly 
imperative  upon  parents  to  be  "  holy  in  all  manner  of  conversation,  and 
godliness,"  and  thus  to  enforce  truth  by  example.  It  concerns  them,  as 
much  as  ministers,  to  be  anxious  for  the  success  of  their  labours ;  and 
recognizing  the  same  principle,  that  "  God  giveth  the  increase,"  to  be 
abundant  in  prayers  for  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  their  children. 
Both  as  a  means  of  grace,  and  in  recognition  of  God's  covenant  of  mercy 
with  tliem  and  their  seed  after  them,  it  behooves  them  also  to  bring  their 
children  to  baptism  in  their  infancy ;  to  explain  to  them  the  baptismal 
covenant  when  they  are  able  to  understand  it ;  and  to  habituate  them 
from  early  years  to  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  to  regular  attend- 
ance on  the  public  worship  of  God. 

The  GOVERNMENT  of  children  is  another  great  branch  of  parental 
duty,  in  which  both  the  parents  are  bound  cordially  to  unite.  Like  all 
other  kinds  of  government  appointed  by  God,  the  end  is  the  good  of 
those  subject  to  it ;  and  it  therefore  excludes  all  caprice,  vexation,  and 
tyranny.  In  the  case  of  parents,  it  is  eminently  a  government  of  love, 
and  therefore,  although  it  includes  strictness,  it  necessarily  excludes  se- 
verity. The  mild  and  benevolent  character  of  our  Divine  religion  dis- 
plays itself  here,  as  in  every  other  instance  where  the  heat  of  temper, 
the  possession  of  power,  or  the  ebuUitions  of  passion,  might  be  turned 
against  the  weak  and  unprotected.  The  civil  laws  of  those  countries  in 
which  Christianity  was  first  promulgated,  gave  great  power  to  parents  (3) 

(3)  By  the  old  Roman  law,  the  father  had  the  power  of  life  and  death,  as  to 
his  children, 
9 


I 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  555 

over  their  children,  which,  in  the  unfechng  spirit  of  paganism,  was 
often  harshly,  and  even  cruelly,  used.  On  the  contrary,  St.  Paul  en- 
joins,  "And  ye  fathers,  provoke  not  your  children  to  wrath,"  meaning 
plainly,  by  a  rigorous  severity,  an  overbearing  and  tyrannical  behaviour, 
tending  to  exasperate  angry  passions  in  them.  So  again,  "  Fathers, 
provoke  not  your  children,  lest  they  be  discouraged,"  discouraged  from 
all  attempts  at  pleasing,  as  regarding  it  an  impossible  task,  "  and  be  un- 
fitted to  pass  through  the  world  with  advantage,  when  their  spirits  have 
been  unreasonably  broken  under  an  oppressive  yoke,  in  the  earliest  years 
of  their  hfe."  {^Doddridge  on  Coloss.  iii,  21.)  But  though  the  parental 
government  is  founded  upon  kindness,  and  can  never  be  separated  from 
it,  when  rightly  understood  and  exercised,  it  is  still  government,  and  is 
a  trust  committed  by  God  to  the  parent,  which  must  be  faithfully  dis- 
charged. Corporal  correction  is  not  only  allowed,  but  is  made  a  duty 
in  Scripture,  where  other  means  would  be  ineffectual.  Yet  it  may  be 
laid  down  as  a  certain  principle,  that,  where  the  authority  of  a  parent  is 
exercised  with  constancy  and  discretion,  and  enforced  by  gravity,  kind- 
ness, and  character,  this  will  seldom  be  found  necessary  ;  nor,  when  the 
steady  resolution  of  the  parent  to  inflict  it  when  it  is  demanded  by  the 
case,  is  once  known  to  the  child,  will  it  need  often  to  be  repeated.  Pa- 
rental government  is  also  concerned  in  forming  the  maimers  of  children ; 
in  inculcating  civility,  order,  cleanliness,  industry,  and  economy ;  in 
repressing  extravagant  desires  and  gratifications  in  dress  and  amuse- 
ments ;  and  in  habituating  the  will  to  a  ready  submission  to  authority. 
It  must  be  so  supreme,  whatever  the  age  of  children  may  be,  as  to  con- 
trol the  whole  order  and  habits  of  the  family,  and  to  exclude  all  hcen- 
liousness,  riot,  and  unbecoming  amusements  from  the  house,  lest  the 
curse  of  Eli  should  fall  upon  those  who  imitate  his  example  in  not  re- 
proving evil  with  sufficient  earnestness,  and  not  restraining  it  by  the 
effectual  exercise  of  authority. 

Another  duty  of  parents  is  the  comfortable  settlement  of  their  chil- 
dren in  the  world,  as  far  as  their  ability  extends.  This  includes  the  dis- 
creet choosing  of  a  calling,  by  which  their  children  may  "  provide  things 
honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men  ;"  taking  especial  care,  however,  that  their 
moral  safety  shall  be  consulted  in  the  choice, — a  consideration  which 
too  many  disregard,  under  the  influence  of  carelessness,  or  a  vain  ambi- 
tion. The  "  laying  up  for  children"  is  also  sanctioned  both  by  nature, 
and  by  our  religion ;  but  this  is  not  so  to  be  understood  as  that  the  com- 
forts of  a  parent,  according  to  his  rank  in  hfe,  should  be  abridged ;  nor 
that  it  should  interfere  with  those  charities  which  Christianity  has  made 
his  personal  duty. 

The  next  of  these  reciprocal  duties,  are  those  of  servant  and  master. 

This  is  a  relation  which  will  continue  to  the  end  of  time.  Equality 
of  condition  is  alike  contrary  to  the  nature  of  things,  and  to  the  appoint- 

2 


556  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ment  of  God.  Some  must  toil,  and  others  direct ;  some  command,  and 
others  obey ;  nor  is  this  order  contrary  to  the  real  interest  of  the  multi- 
tude,  as  at  first  sight  it  might  appear.  The  acquisition  of  wealth  by  a 
few  aifords  more  abundant  employment  to  the  many ;  and  in  a  well  or- 
dered, thriving,  and  industrious  state,  except  in  seasons  of  pecuhar  dis- 
tress, it  is  evident,  that  the  comforts  of  the  lower  classes  are  greater 
than  could  be  attained  were  the  land  equally  divided  among  them,  and 
so  left  to  their  own  cultivation  that  no  one  should  be  the  servant  of  ano- 
ther. To  preserve  such  a  state  of  things  would  be  impossible ;  and 
could  it  be  done,  no  arts  but  of  the  rudest  kind,  no  manufactures,  and  no 
commerce,  could  exist.  The  very  first  attempt  to  introduce  these  would 
necessarily  create  the  two  classes  of  workmen  and  employers ;  of  the 
many  who  labour  with  the  hands,  and  the  few  who  labour  with  the  mind, 
in  directing  the  operations  ;  and  thus  the  equality  would  be  destroyed. 

It  is  not,  however,  to  be  denied,  that  through  the  bad  principles  and 
violent  passions  of  man,  the  relations  of  servant  and  master  have  been 
a  source  of  great  evil  and  misery.  The  more,  therefore,  is  that  religion 
to  be  valued,  which,  since  these  relations  must  exist,  restrains  the  evil 
that  is  incident  to  them,  and  shows  how  they  may  be  made  sources  of 
mutual  benevolence  and  happiness.  Wherever  the  practical  influence 
of  religion  has  not  been  felt,  servants  have  generally  been  more  or  less 
treated  with  contempt,  contumely,  harsliness,  and  oppression.  They, 
on  the  contrary,  are,  from  their  natural  corruption,  inclined  to  resent 
authority,  to  indulge  selfishness,  and  to  commit  fraud,  either  by  with- 
holding the  just  quantum  of  labour,  or  by  direct  theft.  From  the  con- 
flict of  these  evils  in  servants  and  in  masters,  too  often  result  suspicion, 
cunning,  overreaching,  malignant  passions,  contemptuous  and  irritating 
speeches,  the  loss  of  principle  in  the  servant,  and  of  kind  and  equitable 
feehng  on  the  part  of  the  master. 

The  direct  manner  in  which  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament  tend 
to  remedy  these  evils,  cannot  but  be  remarked.  Government  in  mas- 
ters, as  well  as  in  fathers,  is  an  appointment  of  God,  though  differing  in 
^circumstances ;  and  it  is,  therefore,  to  be  honoured.  "  Let  as  many 
servants  as  are  under  the  yoke,  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all 
honour ;"  a  direction  which  enjoins  both  respectful  thoughts,  and  humi- 
lity and  propriety  of  external  demeanour  toward  them.  Obedience  to 
their  commands  in  all  things  lawful  is  next  enforced ;  which  obedience 
is  to  be  grounded  on  principle  and  conscience  ;  on  "  singleness  of  heart, 
as  unto  Christ ;"  thus  serving  a  master  with  the  same  sincerity,  the  same 
desire  to  do  the  appointed  work  well,  as  is  required  of  us  by  Christ. 
This  service  is  also  to  be  cheerful,  and  not  wrung  out  merely  by  a  sense 
of  duty  :  "Not  with  eye  service,  as  men  pleasers;"  not  having  respect 
simply  to  the  approbation  of  the  master,  but  "  as  the  servants  of  Christ," 
making  profession  of  his  religion,  "  doing  the  will  of  God,"  in  tliis  branch 


THIRD.]  ^THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  557 

of  duty,  "  from  the  heart^''  with  alacrity  and  good  feeling.  The  duties 
of  servants,  stated  in  these  brief  precepts,  might  easily  be  shown  to  com- 
prehend every  particular  which  can  be  justly  required  of  persons  in  this 
station ;  and  the  whole  is  enforced  by  a  sanction  which  could  have  no 
place  but  in  a  revelation  from  God, — "  knowing  that  whatsoever  good 
thing  any  man  doeth,  the  same  shall  he  receive  of  the  Lord,  whether 
he  be  bond  or  free,"  Eph.  vi,  5.  In  other  words,  even  the  common 
duties  of  servants,  when  faithfully,  cheerfully,  and  piously  performed, 
are  by  Christianity  made  rewardable  actions :  "  Of  the  Lord  ye  shall 
receive  a  reward." 

The  duties  of  servants  and  masters  are,  however,  strictly  reciprocal. 
Hence  the  apostle  continues  his  injunctions  as  to  the  right  discharge  of 
these  relations,  by  saying,  immediately  after  he  had  prescribed  the  con- 
duct of  servants,  "  And  ye,  masters,  do  tlie  same  things  unto  them  ;"  that 
is,  act  toward  them  upon  the  same  equitable,  conscientious,  and  bene- 
volent principles,  as  you  exact  from  them.  He  then  grounds  his  rules, 
as  to  masters,  upon  the  great  and  influential  principle,  "  Knowing  that 
your  Master  is  in  heaven ;"  that  you  are  under  authority,  and  are  ac- 
countable to  him  for  your  conduct  to  your  servants.  Thus  masters  are 
put  under  the  eye  of  God,  who  not  only  maintains  their  authority,  when 
properly  exercised,  by  making  their  servants  accountable  for  any  con- 
tempt of  it,  and  for  every  other  failure  of  duty,  but  also  holds  the  master 
himself  responsible  for  its  just  and  mild  exercise.  A  solemn  and  reli- 
gious aspect  is  thus  at  once  given  to  a  relation,  which  by  many  is 
considered  as  one  merely  of  interest.  When  the  apostle  enjoins  it  on 
masters  to  "  forbear  threatening,"  he  inculcates  the  treatment  of  ser- 
vants with  kindness  of  manner,  with  humanity,  and  good  nature ;  and, 
by  consequence  also,  the  cultivation  of  that  benevolent  feeling  toward 
persons  in  this  condition,  which,  in  all  rightly  influenced  minds,  will 
flow  from  the  consideration  of  their  equality  with  themselves  in  the  sight 
of  God ;  their  equal  share  in  the  benefits  of  redemption  ;  their  relation 
to  us  as  brethren  in  Christ,  if  they  are  "  partakers  of  like  precious 
faith ;"  and  their  title  to  the  common  inheritance  of  heaven,  where  all 
those  temporary  distinctions  on  which  human  vanity  is  so  apt  to  fasten, 
shall  be  done  away.  There  will  also  not  be  wanting  in  such  minds,  a 
consideration  of  the  service  rendered ;  (for  the  benefit  is  mutual ;)  and 
a  feeling  of  gratitude  for  service  faithfully  performed,  although  it  is 
compensated  by  wages  or  hire. 

To  benevolent  sentiment  the  apostle,  however,  adds  the  principles 
of  justice  and  equity :  "  Masters,  give  to  your  servants  that  which' 
is  just  and  equal,  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  Master  in  heaven,"  who* 
is  the  avenger  of  injustice.  The  terms  just  and  equal,  though  terms  of 
near  affinity,  have  a  somewhat  different  signification.  To  give  that 
which  is  jtist  to  a  servant,  is  to  deal  with  him  according  to  an  agree - 

2 


558  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ment  made  ;  but  to  give  him  what  is  equals  is  to  deal  fairly  and  honestly 
with  him,  and  to  return  what  is  his  due  in  reason  and  conscience,  even 
when  there  are  circumstances  in  the  case  which  strict  law  would  not 
oblige  us  to  take  into  the  account.  "  Justice  makes  our  contracts  the 
measure  of  our  deahngs  with  others,  and  equity  our  consciences ^ 
(Fleetwood's  Relative  Duties.)  Equity  here  may  also  have  respect  par- 
ticularly  to  that  importEuit  rule  which  obliges  us  to  do  to  others  what 
we  would,  in  the  same  circumstances,  have  them  to  do  to  us.  Tliis 
rule  of  equity  has  a  large  range  in  the  treatment  of  servants.  It  ex- 
eludes  all  arbitrary  and  tyramiical  government ;  it  teaches  masters  to 
respect  the  strength  and  capacity  of  their  servants ;  it  represses  rage 
and  passion,  contumely  and  insult ;  and  it  directs  that  their  labour 
shall  not  be  so  extended  as  not  to  leave  proper  time  for  rest,  for  attend^ 
aiice  on  God's  worship,  and,  at  proper  seasons,  for  recreation. 

The  religious  duties  of  masters  are  also  of  great  importance. 

Under  the  Old  Testament  the  servants  of  a  house  partook  of  the 
common  benefit  of  the  true  religion,  as  appears  from  the  case  of  the 
servants  of  Abraham,  who  were  all  brought  into  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision ;  and  from  the  early  prohibition  of  idolatrous  practices  in 
families,  and,  consequently,  the  maintenance  of  the  common  worship  of 
God.  The  same  consecration  of  whole  families  to  God  we  see  in  the 
New  Testament ;  in  the  baptism  of  "  houses,"  and  the  existence  of 
domestic  Churches.  The  practice  of  inculcating  the  true  religion  upon 
servants,  passed  from  the  Jews  to  the  first  Christians,  and  followed 
indeed  from  the  conscientious  employment  of  the  master's  influence  in 
favour  of  piety ;  a  point  to  which  we  shall  again  advert. 

From  all  this  arises  the  duty  of  instructing  servants  in  the  principles 
of  religion ;  of  teaching  them  to  read,  and  furnishing  them  with  the 
Scriptures ;  of  having  them  present  at  family  worship ;  and  of  con- 
versing  with  them  faithfully  and  affectionately  respecting  their  best 
mterests.  In  particular,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  servants  have  by  the 
law  of  God  a  right  to  the  Sabbath,  of  which  no  master  can,  without  sin, 
deprive  them.  They  are  entitled  under  that  law  to  rest  on  that  day ; 
and  that  not  only  for  the  recreation  of  their  strength  and  spirits,  but, 
especially,  to  enable  them  to  attend  public  worship,  and  to  read  the 
Scriptures,  and  pray  in  private.  Against  this  duty  all  those  offend  who 
employ  servants  in  works  of  gain  ;  and  also  those  who  do  not  so  arrange 
the  affairs  of  their  households,  that  domestic  servants  may  be  as  little 
occupied  as  possible  with  the  affairs  of  the  house,  in  order  that  they 
may  be  able  religiously  to  use  a  day  which  is  made  as  much  theirs  as 
their  masters',  by  the  express  letter  of  the  law  of  God ;  nor  can  the 
blessing  of  God  be  expected  to  rest  upon  families  where  this  shocking 
indifference  to  the  religious  interests  of  domestics,  and  this  open  disre- 
gard of  the  Divine  command  prevail.  A  Jewish  strictness  in  some 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  55^ 

particulars  is  not  bound  upon  Christians ;  as,  for  example,  the  prohibit 
tion  against  lighting  fires.  These  were  parts  of  the  municipal,  not  the 
moral  law  of  the  Jews;  and  they  have  respect  to  a  people  living  in  a 
certain  climate,  and  in  peculiar  circumstances.  But  even  these  prohi- 
bitions are  of  use  as  teaching  us  self  denial,  and  that  in  all  cases  we 
ought  to  keep  within  the  rules  of  necessity.  Unnecessary  occupations 
are  clearly  forbidden  even  when  they  do  not  come  under  the  description 
of  work  for  gain ;  and  when  they  are  avoided,  there  will  be  sufficient 
leisure  for  every  part  of  a  family  to  enjoy  the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  rest, 
and  as  a  day  of  undistracted  devotion.  We  may  here  also  advert  to 
that  heavy  national  offence  which  still  hangs  upon  us,  the  denying  to  the 
great  majority  of  our  bond  slaves  in  the  West  Indies,  those  Sabbath 
rights  which  are  secured  to  them  by  the  very  rehgion  we  profess. 
Neither  as  a  day  of  rest,  nor  as  a  day  of  worshif,  is  this  sacred  day 
granted  to  them ;  and  for  this  our  insolent  and  contemptuous  defiance 
of  God's  holy  law,  we  must  be  held  accountable.  This  is  a  considera- 
tion which  ought  to  mduce  that  part  of  the  community  who  retain  any 
fear  of  God,  to  be  unwearied  in  their  appUcations  to  the  legislature, 
until  this  great  reproach,  this  weight  of  offence  against  rehgion  and 
humanity,  shall  be  taken  away  from  us. 

The  employment  of  injiuence  for  the  rehgious  benefit  of  servants^ 
forms  another  part  of  the  duty  of  every  Christian  master.  This  appears 
to  be  obhgatory  upon  the  general  principle,  that  every  thing  which  can 
be  used  by  us  to  promote  the  will  of  God,  and  to  benefit  others,  is  "  a 
talent"  committed  to  us,  which  we  are  required  by  our  Lord  to  "  oc- 
cupy." It  is  greatly  to  be  feared,  that  this  duty  is  much  neglected 
among  professedly  religious  masters ;  that  even  domestic  servants  are 
suffered  to  Uve  in  a  state  of  spiritual  danger,  without  any  means  being 
regularly  and  affectionately  used  to  bring  them  to  the  practical  know- 
ledge of  the  truth  ;  means  which,  if  used  with  judgment  and  perseve- 
rance, and  enforced  by  the  natural  influence  of  a  superior,  might  prove 
in  many  instances  both  corrective  and  saving.  But  if  this  duty  be  much 
neglected  in  households,  it  is  much  more  disregarded  as  to  that  class  of 
servants  who  are  employed  as  day  labourers  by  the  farmer,  as  journey- 
men by  the  master  artisan,  and  as  workmen  by  the  manufacturer. 
More  or  less  the  master  comes  into  immediate  connection  with  this  class 
of  servants ;  and  although  they  are  not  so  directly  under  his  control  as 
those  of  his  household,  nor  within  reach  of  the  same  instruction,  yet  is 
he  bound  to  discountenance  vice  among  them ;  to  recommend  their 
attendance  on  public  worship  ;  to  see  that  their  children  are  sent  to 
schools  ;  to  provide  religious  help  for  them  when  sick  ;  to  prefer  sober 
and  religious  men  to  others ;  and  to  pay  them  their  wages  in  due  time 
for  market,  and  so  early  on  the  Saturday,  or  on  the  Friday,  that  their 
famihes  may  not  be  obstructed  in  their  preparations  for  attending  the 

2 


560  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

house  of  God  on  the  Lord's  day  morning.  If  the  religious  character  and 
bias  of  the  master  were  thus  felt  by  his  whole  establishment,  and  a  due 
regard  paid  imiformly  to  justice  and  benevolence  in  the  treatment  of  all 
in  his  employ,  not  only  would  great  moral  good  be  the  result,  but  there 
would  be  reason  to  hope  that  the  relation  between  employers  and 
their  workmen,  which,  in  consequence  of  frequent  disputes  respect- 
ing wages  and  combinations,  has  been  rendered  suspicious  and  vexa- 
tious, would  assume  a  character  of  mutual  confidence  and  reciprocal 
good  will. 

Political  justice  respects  chiefly  the  relation  of  subject  and  sove- 
reign, a  delicate  branch  of  morals  in  a  religious  system  introduced  into 
the  world  under  such  circumstances  as  Christianity,  and  which  in  its 
wisdom  it  has  resolved  into  general  principles  of  easy  application,  in 
ordinary  circumstances.  With  equal  wisdom  it  has  left  extraordinary 
emergencies  unprovided  for  by  special  directions  ;  though  even  in  such 
cases  the  path  of  duty  is  not  without  hght  reflected  upon  it  from  the 
whole  genius  and  spirit  of  the  institution. 

On  the  origin  of  power,  and  other  questions  of  government,  endless 
controversies  have  been  held,  and  very  different  theories  adopted,  which, 
so  happily  is  the  world  exchanging  government  by  force  for  government 
by  public  opinion,  have  now  lost  much  of  their  interest,  and  require  not, 
therefore,  a  particular  examination. 

On  this  branch  of  morals,  as  on  the  others  we  have  already  con- 
sidered, the  Scriptures  throw  a  light  pecuhar  to  themselves ;  and  the 
theory  of  government  which  they  contain  will  be  found  perfectly  accord- 
ant with  the  experience  of  the  present  and  best  age  of  the  world  as  to 
practical  government,  and  exhibits  a  perfect  harmony  with  that  still  more 
improved  civil  condition  which  it  must  ultimately  assume  in  consequence 
of  the  diffusion  of  knowledge,  freedom,  and  virtue. 

The  leading  doctrine  of  Scripture  is,  that  government  is  an  ordinance 
of  God.  It  was  manifestly  his  will  that  men  should  live  in  society ;  this 
cannot  be  doubted.  The  very  laws  he  has  given  to  men,  prescribing 
their  relative  duties,  assume  the  permanent  existence  of  social  relations, 
and  therefore  place  them  under  regulation.  From  this  fact  the  Divine 
appointment  of  government  flows  as  a  necessary  consequence.  A  society 
cannot  exist  without  rules  or  laws ;  and  it  therefore  follows  that  such 
laws  must  be  upheld  by  enforcement.  Hence  an  executive  power  in 
some  form  must  arise,  to  guard,  to  judge,  to  reward,  to  punish.  For  if 
there  were  no  executors  of  laws,  the  laws  would  become  a  dead  letter, 
which  would  be  the  same  thing  as  having  none  at  all ;  and  where  there 
are  no  laws,  there  can  be  no  society.  But  we  are  not  left  to  inference. 
In  the  first  ages  of  the  world  government  was  paternal,  and  the  power 
of  government  was  vested  in  parents  by  the  express  appointment  of  God. 
Among  the  Jews,  rulers,  judges,  kings,  were  also  appointed  by  God 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  561 

himself;  and  cls  for  all  other  nations,  the  New  Testament  expressly 
declares,  that  "  the  powers  which  be  are  ordained  of  God." 

The  origin  of  power  is  not,  therefore,  from  man,  but  from  God.  It 
is  not  left  as  a  matter  of  choice  to  men,  whether  they  will  submit  to  be 
governed  or  not ;  it  is  God's  appointment  that  they  should  be  subject  to 
those  powers  whom  he,  in  his  government  of  the  world,  has  placed  over 
them,  in  all  things  for  which  he  has  instituted  government,  that  is,  that 
it  should  be  "  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well." 
Nor  are  they  at  liberty  "  to  resist  the  power,"  when  employed  in  ac 
complishing  such  legitimate  ends  of  government;  nor  to  deny  the  right,  nor 
to  refuse  the  means,  even  when  they  have  the  power  to  do  so,  by  which 
the  supreme  power  may  restrain  evil,  and  enforce  truth,  righteousness, 
and  peace.  Every  supreme  power,  we  may  therefore  conclude,  is 
invested  with  full  and  unalienable  authority  to  govern  well ;  and  the 
people  of  every  state  are  bound,  by  the  institution  of  God,  cheerfully 
and  thankfully  to  submit  to  be  so  governed. 

There  can,  therefore,  be  no  such  compact  between  any  parties  as 
shall  originate  the  right  of  government,  or  the  duty  of  being  governed ; 
nor  can  any  compact  annul,  in  the  least,  the  rightful  authority  of  the 
supreme  power  to  govern  efficiently  for  the  full  accomplishment  of  the 
ends  for  which  government  was  divinely  appointed ;  nor  can  it  place 
any  Umit  upon  the  duty  of  subjects  to  be  governed  accordingly. 

We  may  conclude,  therefore,  with  Paley  and  others,  that  what  is 
called  "  the  social  compact,"  the  theory  of  Locke  and  his  followers  on 
government,  is  a  pure  fiction.  In  point  of  fact,  men  never  did  originate 
government  by  mutual  agreement ;  and  men  are  all  born  under  some 
government,  and  become  its  subjects,  without  having  any  terms  of  com- 
pact proposed  to  them,  or  giving  any  consent  to  understood  terms,  or 
being  conscious  at  all  that  their  assent  is  necessary  to  convey  the  right 
to  govern  them,  or  to  impose  upon  themselves  the  obligation  of  subjec- 
tion. The  absurdities  which  Paley  has  pointed  out  as  necessarily  fol- 
lowing from  the  theory  of  the  social  compact,  appear  to  be  sufficiently 
well  founded ;  but  the  fatal  objection  is,  that  it  makes  government  a 
mere  creation  of  man,  whereas  Scripture  makes  it  an  ordinance  of  God : 
it  supposes  no  obligation  anterior  to  human  consent ;  whereas  the  ap- 
pointment  of  God  constitutes  the  obligation,  and  is  wholly  independent 
of  human  choice  and  arrangement. 

The  matter  of  government,  however,  does  not  appear  to  be  left  so 
loose  as  it  is  represented  by  the  author  of  the  Moral  and  Political  Phi. 
losophy. 

The  ground  of  the  subject's  obligation  which  he  assigns  is  "  the  will 
of  God  as  collected  from  expediency."  We  prefer  to  assign  the  will  of 
God  as  announced  in  the  public  law  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  which  mani- 
festly  establishes  two  points  as  general  rules  :  1.  The  positive  obligation 

Vol.  II.  36 


562  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  men  to  submit  to  government :  2.  Their  obligation  to  yield  obedience, 
in  all  things  lawful,  to  the  governments  under  which  they  live,  as  ap- 
pointed by  God  in  the  order  of  his  providence, — "  the  powers  that  be," 
the  powers  which  actually  exist,  "  are  ordained  of  God."  From  these 
two  principles  it  will  follow,  that  in  the  case  of  any  number  of  men  and 
women  being  thrown  together  in  some  desert  part  of  the  world,  it  would 
be  their  duty  to  marry,  to  institute  paternal  government  in  their  families, 
and  to  submit  to  a  common  government,  in  obedience  to  the  declared 
will  of  God :  and  in  the  case  of  persons  born  under  any  established 
government,  that  they  are  required  to  yield  submission  to  it  as  an  ordi- 
nance of  God,  "  a  power"  already  appointed,  and  under  which  they  are 
placed  in  the  order  of  Divine  providence. 

Evident,  however,  as  these  principles  are,  they  can  never  be  pleaded 
in  favour  of  oppression  and  wrong  ;  since  it  is  always  to  be  remembered 
that  the  same  Scriptures  which  establish  these  principles  have  set  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  guards  and  limits  about  them,  and  that  the  rights  and 
duties  of  sovereign  and  subject  are  reciprocal.  The  manner  in  which 
they  are  made  to  harmonize  with  public  interest  and  liberty  will  appear 
after  these  reciprocal  duties  and  rights  are  explained. 

The  duties  of  the  sovereign  power,  whatever  its  form  may  be,  are, 
the  enactment  of  just  and  equal  laws ;  the  impartial  execution  of  those 
laws  in  mercy ;  the  encouragement  of  religion,  morality,  learning,  and 
industry ;  the  protection  and  sustenance  of  the  poor  and  helpless ;  the 
maintenance  of  domestic  peace,  and,  as  far  as  the  interests  of  the  com- 
munity will  allow,  of  peace  with  all  nations ;  the  faithful  observance  of 
all  treaties ;  an  incessant  apphcation  to  the  cares  of  government,  with- 
out exacting  more  tribute  from  the  people  than  is  necessary  for  the  real 
wants  of  the  state,  and  the  hpnourable  maintenance  of  its  officers;  the 
appointment  of  inferior  magistrates  of  probity  and  fitness,  with  a  diligent 
and  strict  oversight  of  them ;  and  finally,  the  making  provision  for  the 
continued  instruction  of  the  people  in  the  rehgion  of  the  Scriptures 
which  it  professes  to  receive  as  a  revelation  from  God,  and  that  with 
such  a  respect  to  the  rights  of  conscience,  as  shall  leave  all  men  free  to 
discharge  their  duties  to  Him  who  is  "higher  than  the  highest." 

All  these  obligations  are  either  plainly  expressed,  or  are  to  be  inferred 
from  such  passages  as  the  following  :  "  The  God  of  Israel  said,  the  Rock 
of  Israel  spake  to  me.  He  that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  just,  ruling  in 
the  fear  of  God ;  and  he  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  morning  when  the 
sun  riseth,  even  a  morning  without  clouds,  as  the  tender  grass  springeth 
out  of  the  earth  by  clear  shining  after  rain  ;"  images  which  join  to  the 
attribute  of  justice  a  constant  and  diffusive  beneficence.  "  Mercy  and 
truth  preserve  the  king."  "Ye  shall  do  no  unrighteousness  in  judg- 
ment ;  thou  shalt  not  respect  the  person  of  the  poor,  nor  honour  the 
person  of  the  mighty ;  but  in  righteousness  thou  shalt  judge."  "  He 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  563 

that  saith  unto  the  wicked,  Thou  art  righteous,"  that  is,  acquits  thfe 
guilty  in  judgment,  "  him  shall  the  people  curse,  nations  shall  abhor 
him."  "  Moreover  thou  shalt  provide  out  of  all  the  people  able  men ; 
such  as  fear  God ;  men  of  truth,  hating  covetousness ;  and  place  such 
over  them,  and  let  them  judge  the  people  at  all  seasons."  "  Him  that 
hath  a  high  look  and  a  proud  heart  I  will  not  suffer.  Mine  eyes  shall 
be  upon  the  faithful  in  the  land,  that  they  may  dwell  with  me ;  he  that 
walketh  in  a  perfect  way,  he  shall  serve  me.  He  that  worketh  deceit 
shall  not  dwell  in  my  house,  he  that  telleth  Ues  shall  not  tarry  in  my 
sight."  To  these  and  many  similar  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  may 
be  added,  as  so  many  intimations  of  the  Divine  iciU  as  to  rulers,  those 
patriotic  and  pious  practices  of  such  of  the  judges  and  kings  of  Israel 
as  had  the  express  approbation  of  God  ;  for  although  they  may  not  apply 
as  particular  rules  in  all  cases,  they  have  to  all  succeeding  ages  the 
force  of  the  general  principles  which  are  implied  in  them.  The  New 
Testament  directions,  although  expressed  generally,  are  equally  com- 
prehensive;  and  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  while  they  assert  the 
Divine  ordination  of  *'  the  powers  that  be,"  they  explicitly  mark  out  for 
what  ends  they  were  thus  appointed,  and  allow,  therefore,  of  no  plea  of 
Divine  right  in  rulers  for  any  thing  contrary  to  them.  "  Render  unto 
Cesar  the  things  that  are  Cesar's,"  that  is,  things  which  are  Cesar's  by 
public  law  and  customary  impost.  "  For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good 
warJiS,  but  to  the  evil.  Wilt  thou  not  be  afraid  of  the  power  ?  Do  that 
which  is  goodj  and  thou  shalt  have  praise  of  the  same  ;  for  he  is  the 
minister  of  God  to  thee /or  good.  But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be 
afraid  ;  for  he  beareth  not  the  sword  iii  vain  ;  for  he  is  the  minister  of 
God,  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil.^^  ''^ Submit 
yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man,  for  the  Lord's  sake ;  whether  it 
be  to  the  kin^,  as  supreme,  or  unto  governors,  as  unto  them  that  are 
sent  by  him  for  the  punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them 
that  do  well." 

In  these  passages,  which  state  the  legitimate  ends  of  government, 
and  limit  God's  ordination  of  government  to  them,  the  duties  of  sub- 
jects are  partially  anticipated ;  but  they  are  capable  of  a  fuller  enume- 
ration. 

Subjection  and  obedience  are  the  first ;  qualified,  however,  as  we  know 
from  the  example  of  tlie  apostles,  with  exceptions  as  to  what  is  contrary 
to  conscience  and  morality.  In  such  cases  they  obeyed  not,  but  suffered 
rather.  Otherwise  the  rule  is,  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject  to  the  higher 
powers  ;"  and  that  not  merely  "  for  wrath,"  fear  of  punishment,  but  ''for 
conscience'  sake,"  from  a  conviction  that  it  is  right.  "  For  this  cause 
pay  ye  tribute  also  ;  for  they  are  God's  ministers,  attending  continually 
upon  this  very  thing.  Render,  therefore,  to  all  their  dues,  tribute  to 
whom  tribute  is  due,  custom  to  whom   custom,  fear  to  whom  fear, 

2 


564  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES,  [PART 

honour  to  whom  honour."  Supplies  for  the  necessities  of  government 
are  therefore  to  be  wilhngly  and  faithfully  furnished.  Rulers  are  also 
to  be  treated  with  respect  and  reverence :  "  Thou  shalt  not  speak  evil  of 
the  ruler  of  thy  people."  They  are  to  be  honoured  both  by  external 
marks  of  respect,  and  by  being  maintained  in  dignity  ;  their  actions  are 
to  be  judged  of  with  candour  and  charily,  and  when  questioned  or 
blamed,  this  is  to  be  done  with  moderation,  and  not  with  invective  or 
ridicule,  a  mode  of  "  speaking  evil  of  dignities,"  which  grossly  offends 
against  the  Christian  rule.  This  branch  of  our  duties  is  greatly  strength- 
ened by  the  enjoined  duty  of  praying  for  rulers,  a  circumstance  which 
gives  an  efficacy  to  it  which  no  uninspired  system  can  furnish.  "  I  ex- 
hort, therefore,  that  first  of  all  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions,  and 
giving  of  thanks  be  made  for  all  men  ;  for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in 
authority,  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  all  godliness 
and  honesty ;  for  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our 
Saviour."  This  holy  and  salutary  practice  is  founded  upon  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  ordinance  of  God  as  to  government ;  it  recognizes,  also,  the 
existing  powers  in  every  place  as  God's  "  ministers ;"  it  supposes  that 
all  public  affairs  are  under  Divine  control ;  it  reminds  men  of  the  ardu- 
ous duties  and  responsibility  of  governors ;  it  promotes  a  benevolent, 
grateful,  and  respectful  feeling  toward  them ;  and  it  is  a  powerful  guard 
against  the  factious  and  seditious  spirit.  These  are  so  evidently  the 
principles  and  tendencies  of  this  sacred  custom,  that  when  prayer  has 
been  used,  as  it  sometimes  has,  to  convey  the  feelings  of  a  malignant, 
factious,  or  light  spirit,  every  well-disposed  mind  must  have  been  shocked 
at  so  profane  a  mockery,  and  must  have  felt  that  such  prayers  "  for  all 
that  are  in  authority,"  were  any  thing  but  "  good  and  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  God  our  Saviour." 

Connected  as  these  reciprocal  rights  and  duties  of  rulers,  and  of  their 
subjects,  are  with  the  peace,  order,  liberty,  and  welfare  of  society,  so 
that  were  they  universally  acted  upon,  nothing  would  remain  to  be  de- 
sired for  the  promotion  of  its  peace  and  welfare ;  it  is  also  evident  that 
in  no  part  of  the  world  have  they  been  fully  observed,  and,  indeed,  in 
most  countries  they  are,  to  this  day,  grossly  trampled  upon.  A  question 
then  arises,  How  far  does  it  consist  with  Christian  submission  to  endea- 
vour to  remedy  the  evils  of  a  government  1 

On  this  difficult  and  often  controverted  point  we  must  proceed  with 
caution,  and  with  steady  respect  to  the  principles  above  drawn  from  the 
word  of  God  ;  and  that  the  subject  may  be  less  entangled,  it  may  be  pro- 
per to  leave  out  of  our  consideration,  for  the  present,  all  questions  re- 
lating to  rival  supreme  powers,  as  in  the  case  of  a  usurpation,  and  those 
which  respect  the  duty  of  subjects,  when  persecuted  by  their  govern- 
ment on  account  of  their  religion. 

Although  government  is  enjoined  by  God,  it  appears  to  be  left  to  men 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  5G5 

to  judge  in  what  form  its  purposes  may,  in  certain  circumstances,  be 
most  effectually  accomplished.  No  direction  is  given  on  this  subject 
in  the  Scriptures.  The  patriarchal  or  family  governments  of  the  most 
ancient  times,  were  founded  upon  nature  ;  but  when  two  or  more  families 
were  joined  under  one  head,  either  for  mutual  defence,  or  for  aggres- 
sion,  the  [government]  was  one  of  choice,  or  it  resulted  from  a  submis- 
sion  effected  by  conquest.  Here  in  many  cases,  a  compact  might, 
and  in  some  instances  did,  come  in,  though  differing  in  principle  from 
*'  the  social  compact"  of  theoretical  writers  ;  and  this  affords  the  only 
rational  way  of  interpreting  that  real  social  compact  which  in  some  de- 
gree or  other  exists  in  all  nations.  In  all  cases  where  the  patriarchal 
government  was  to  be  raised  into  a  government  common  to  many  fami- 
hes,  some  considerable  number  of  persons  must  have  determined  its 
form,  and  they  would  have  the  right  to  place  it  upon  such  fundamental 
principles  as  might  seem  best,  provided  that  such  principles  did  not  in- 
terfere with  the  duties  made  obligatory  by  God  upon  every  sovereign 
power,  and  with  the  obligations  of  the  subject  to  be  governed  by  justice 
in  mercy,  and  to  be  controlled  from  injuring  others.  Equally  clear 
would  be  the  right  of  the  community,  either  en  masse,  or  by  their  natural 
heads  or  representatives,  to  agree  upon  a  body  of  laws,  which  should 
be  the  standing  and  published  expression  of  the  will  of  the  supreme 
power,  that  so  the  sovereign  will  on  all  main  questions  might  not  be 
subject  to  constant  changes  and  the  caprice  of  an  individual ;  and  to 
oblige  the  sovereign,  as  the  condition  of  his  office,  to  bind  himself  to 
observe  these  fundamental  principles  and  laws  of  the  state  by  solemn 
oath,  which  has  been  the  practice  among  many  nations,  and  especially 
those  of  the  Gothic  stock.  It  follows  from  hence,  that  while  there  is 
an  ordination  of  God  as  to  government,  prior  to  the  establishment  of  all 
governments,  there  is  no  ordination  of  a  particular  man  or  men  to  govern, 
nor  any  investment  of  families  with  hereditary  right.  There  is  no  such 
ordination  in  Scripture,  and  we  know  that  none  takes  place  by  par- 
ticular  revelation.  God  "  setteth  up  one,  and  putteth  down  another," 
in  virtue  of  his  dominion  over  all  things ;  but  he  does  this  through 
men  themselves,  as  his  controlled  and  often  unconscious  instruments. 
Hence,  by  St.  Peter,  in  perfect  consistency  with  St.  Paul,  the  existing 
governments  of  the  world  are  called  "ordinances  of  men." — "  Submit 
to  every  ordinance  of  man,"  or  to  every  human  creation  or  constitution, 
"  for  the  Lord's  sake,  whether  to  the  king  as  supreme,"  &c.  Again, 
as  the  wisdom  to  govern  with  absolute  truth  and  justice,  is  not  to  be 
presumed  to  dwell  in  one  man,  however  virtuous,  so,  in  this  state  of 
things,  the  better  to  secure  a  salutary  administration,  there  would  be  a 
right  to  make  provision  for  this  also,  by  councils,  senates,  parliaments, 
cortes,  or  similar  institutions,  vested  with  suitable  powers,  to  forward, 
but  not  to  obstruct,  the  exercise  of  good  government.    And  accordingly, 

2 


566  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

we  can  trace  the  rudiments  of  these  institutions  in  the  earliest  stages 
of  most  regular  governments.  These  and  similar  arrangements,  are 
left  to  human  care,  prudence,  and  patriotism ;  and  they  are  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  sovereign  right  as  laid  down  in 
Scripture. 

It  is  not,  however,  in  the  forming  of  a  new  state,  that  any  great  difficulty 
in  morals  arises.  It  comes  in  when  either  old  states,  originally  ill  consti- 
tuted,  become  inadapted  to  the  purposes  of  good  government  in  a  new 
and  altered  condition  of  society,  and  the  supreme  power  refuses  to  adapt 
itself  to  this  new  state  of  affairs ;  or  when  in  states  originally  well  con- 
stituted, encroachments  upon  the  public  liberties  take  place,  and  great 
misrule  or  neglect  is  chargeable  upon  the  executive.  The  question  in 
such  cases  is,  whether  resistance  to  the  will  of  the  supreme  power  is 
consistent  with  the  subjects'  duty  ? 

To  answer  this,  resistance  must  be  divided  into  two  kinds, — the  resist- 
ance of  opinion,  and  the  resistance  of  force. 

As  to  the  first,  the  lawfulness,  nay,  even  the  duty  of  it  must  often  be 
allowed  ;  but  under  certain  qualifying  circumstances.  As,  1.  That  this 
resistance  of  opposing  and  inculpating  opinion  is  not  directed  against 
government,  as  such,  however  strict,  provided  it  be  just  and  impartial. 
2.  That  it  is  not  personal  against  the  supreme  magistrate  himself,  or  his 
delegated  authorities,  but  relates  to  public  acts  only.  3.  That  it  springs 
not  from  mere  theoretical  preference  of  some  new  form  of  government 
to  that  actually  existing,  so  that  it  has  in  it  nothing  practical.  4.  That 
it  proceeds  not  from  a  hasty,  prejudiced,  or  malignant  interpretation  of 
the  character,  designs,  and  acts  of  a  government.  5.  That  it  is  not 
factious  ;  that  is,  not  the  result  of  attachment  to  parties,  and  of  zeal  to 
effect  mere  party  objects,  instead  of  the  general  good.  6.  That  it  does 
not  respect  the  interests  of  a  few  only,  or  of  a  part  of  the  community, 
or  the  mere  local  interests  of  some  places  in  opposition  to  the  just  inte- 
rests of  other  places.  Under  such  guards  as  these,  the  respectful,  but 
firm  expression  of  opinion,  by  speech,  writing,  petition,  or  remonstrance, 
is  not  only  lawful,  but  is  often  an  imperative  duty,  a  duty  for  which 
hazards  even  must  be  run  by  those  who  endeavour  to  lead  up  pubhc 
opinion  to  place  itself  against  real  encroachments  upon  the  fundamental 
laws  of  a  state,  or  any  serious  maladministration  of  its  affairs.  The  same 
conclusion  may  be  maintained  under  similar  reserves,  when  the  object 
is  to  improve  a  deficient  and  inadequate  state  of  the  supreme  govern- 
ment. It  is  indeed  especially  requisite  here,  that  the  case  should  be  a 
clear  one ;  that  it  should  be  felt  to  be  so  by  the  great  mass  of  those 
who  with  any  propriety  can  be  called  the  public ;  that  it  should  not  be 
urged  beyond  the  necessity  of  the  case  ;  that  the  discussion  of  it  should 
be  temperate ;  that  the  change  should  be  directly  connected  with  an 
obvious  public  good,  not  otherwise  to  be  accomplished.  When  these 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  567 

circumstances  meet,  there  is  manifestly  no  opposition  to  government  as 
an  ordinance  of  God ;  no  blamable  resistance  "  to  the  powers  that  be," 
since  it  is  only  proposed  to  place  them  in  circumstances  the  more  effect- 
ually  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  their  office  ;  nothing  contrary,  in  fact,  to  the 
original  compact,  the  object  of  which  was  the  pubUc  benefit,  by  render, 
ing  its  government  as  efficient  to  promote  the  good  of  the  state  as  pos- 
sible,  and  which  therefore  necessarily  supposed  a  liability  to  future 
modifications,  when  the  fairly  collected  public  sentiment,  through  the 
organs  by  which  it  usually  expresses  itself  as  to  the  public  weal,  re- 
quired it.  The  least  equivocal  time,  however,  for  proposing  any  change 
in  what  might  be  regarded  as  fundamental  or  constitutional  in  a  form 
of  government  originally  ill  settled,  would  be  on  the  demise  of  the  sove- 
reign, when  the  new  stipulations  might  be  offered  to  his  successor,  and 
very  lawfully  be  imposed  upon  him. 

Resistance  hy  force  may  be  divided  into  two  kinds.  The  first  is  that 
milder  one  which  belongs  to  constitutional  states,  that  is,  to  those  in 
which  the  compact  between  the  supreme  power  and  the  people  has  been 
drawn  out  into  express  articles,  or  is  found  in  well-understood  and  re- 
ceived principles  and  ancient  customs,  imposing  checks  upon  the  sove- 
reign will,  and  surrounding  with  guards  the  public  liberty.  The  appli- 
cation  of  this  controlUng  power,  which,  in  this  country,  is  placed  in  a 
parliament,  may  have  in  it  much  of  compulsion  and  force  ;  as  when  par- 
hament  rejects  measures  proposed  by  the  ministry,  who  are  the  organs 
of  the  will  of  the  sovereign ;  or  when  it  refuses  the  usual  supplies  for 
the  army  and  navy,  until  grievances  are  redressed.  The  proper  or 
improper  use  of  this  power  depends  on  the  circumstances ;  but  when  not 
employed  factiously,  nor  under  the  influence  of  private  feelings,  nor  in 
subservience  to  unjustifiable  popular  clamour,  or  to  popular  dema- 
gogues ;  but  advisedly  and  patriotically,  in  order  to  maintain  the  laws 
and  customs  of  the  kingdom,  there  is  in  it  no  infringement  of  the  laws 
of  Scripture  as  to  the  subjects'  obedience.  A  compact  exists  ;  these 
are  the  estabhshed  means  of  enforcing  it ;  and  to  them  the  sovereign 
has  consented  in  his  coronation  oath. 

The  second  kind  is  resistance  hy  force  of  arms ;  and  this  at  least 
must  be  established  before  its  lawfulness,  in  any  case,  however  extreme, 
can  be  proved,  that  it  is  so  necessary  to  remedy  some  great  public  evil 
that  milder  means  are  totally  inadequate, — a  point  which  can  very  sel- 
dom be  made  out  so  clearly  as  to  satisfy  conscientious  men.  One  of 
three  cases  must  be  supposed  : — either  that  the  nation  enjoys  good  in- 
stitutions which  it  is  enlightened  enough  to  value : — or  that  public  liberty 
and  other  civil  blessings  are  in  gradual  progress  ;  but  that  a  part  only  of 
the  people  are  interested  in  maintaining  and  advancing  them,  while  a  great 
body  of  ignorant,  prejudiced,  and  corrupt  persons,  are  on  the  side  of  the 
supreme  power,  and  ready  to  lend  themselves  as  instruments  of  its  mis^ 

% 


568  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

rule  and  despotism  : — or,  thirdly,  that  although  the  majority  of  the  pub- 
lic are  opposed  to  infringements  on  the  constitution,  yet  the  sovereign, 
in  attempting  to  change  the  fundamental  principles  of  his  compact,  em- 
ploys his  mercenary  troops  against  his  subjects,  or  is  aided  and  abetted 
by  some  foreign  influence  or  power. 

In  the  first  case  we  have  supposed,  it  does  not  seem  possible  for  un- 
just aggressions  to  be  successful.  The  people  are  enlightened,  and  at- 
tached  to  their  institutions ;  and  a  prompt  resistance  of  public  opinion 
to  the  very  first  attempt  of  the  supreme  power  must,  in  that  case,  be 
excited,  and  will  be  sufiicient  to  arrest  the  evil.  Accordingly,  we  find 
no  instance  of  such  a  people  being  bereft  of  their  liberty  by  their  rulers. 
The  danger  in  that  state  of  society  often  lies  on  the  other  side.  For 
as  there  is  a  natural  inclination  in  men  in  power  to  extend  their  autho- 
rity,  so  in  subjects  there  is  a  strong  disposition  to  resist  or  evade  it ;  and 
when  the  strength  of  public  opinion  is  known  in  any  country,  there  are 
never  wanting  persons,  who,  from  vanity,  faction,  or  interest,  are  ready 
to  excite  the  passions,  and  to  corrupt  the  feelings  of  the  populace,  and 
to  render  them  suspicious  and  unruly ;  so  that  the  difficulty  which  a 
true  patriotism  will  often  have  to  contend  with,  is,  not  to  repress  but  to 
support  a  just  authority.  Licentiousness  in  the  people  has  often,  by  a 
re-action,  destroyed  liberty,  overthrowing  the  powers  by  which  alone  it 
is  supported. 

The  second  case  supposes  just  opinions  and  feelings  on  the  necessity 
of  improving  the  civil  institutions  of  a  country  to  be  in  some  progress ; 
that  the  evils  of  bad  government  are  not  only  beginning  to  be  felt,  but 
to  be  extensively  reflected  upon  ;  and  that  the  circumstances  of  a  coun- 
try are  such  that  these  considerations  must  force  themselves  upon  the 
public  mind,  and  advance  the  influence  of  public  opinion  in  favour  of 
beneficial  changes.  When  this  is  the  case,  the  existing  evils  must  be 
gradually  counteracted,  and  ultimately  subdued  by  the  natural  opera- 
tion of  all  these  circumstances.  But  if  little  impression  has  been  made 
upon  the  public  mind,  resistance  would  be  hopeless,  and,  even  if  not 
condemned  by  a  higher  principle,  impolitic.  The  elements  of  society 
are  not  capable  of  being  formed  into  a  better  system,  or,  if  formed  into 
it,  cannot  sustain  it,  since  no  form  of  government,  however  good  in 
theory,  is  reducible  to  beneficial  practice,  without  a  considerable  degree 
of  public  intelligence  and  public  virtue.  Even  where  society  is  partially 
prepared  for  beneficial  changes,  they  may  be  hurried  on  too  rapidly, 
that  is,  before  sufliicient  previous  impression  has  been  made  upon  the 
public  mind  and  character,  and  then  nothing  but  mischief  could  result 
from  a  contest  of  force  with  a  bad  government.  The  effect  would  be 
that  the  leaders  of  each  party  would  appeal  to  an  ignorant  and  bad 
populace,  and  the  issue  on  either  side  would  prove  injurious  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  civil  improvement.  If  the  despotic  party  should  triumph, 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  569 

then,  of  course,  all  patriotism  would  be  confounded  with  rebellion,  and 
the  efforts  of  moderate  men  to  benefit  their  country  be  rendered  for  a 
long  time  hopeless.  If  the  party  seeking  just  reforms  should  triumph, 
they  could  only  do  so  by  the  aid  of  those  whose  bad  passions  they  had 
inflamed,  as  was  the  case  in  the  French  revolution  ;  and  then  the  result 
would  be  a  violence  which,  it  is  true,  overthrows  one  form  of  tyranny, 
but  sets  up  another  under  which  the  best  men  perish.  It  cannot  be 
doubted  but  that  the  sound  public  opinion  in  France,  independent  of  all 
the  theories  in  favour  of  republicanism  which  had  been  circulated  among 
a  people  previously  unprepared  for  political  discussions,  was  sufficient 
to  have  effected,  gradually,  the  most  beneficial  changes  in  its  govern- 
ment ;  and  that  the  violence  which  was  excited  by  blind  passions  threw 
back  the  real  liberties  of  that  country  for  many  years.  The  same  effect 
followed  the  parhamentary  war,  excited  in  our  own  country  in  the  reign 
of  Charles  the  First.  The  resistance  of  arms  was  in  neither  case  to  be 
justified,  and  it  led  to  the  worst  crimes.  The  extreme  case  of  neces- 
sity  was  not  made  out  in  either  instance ;  and  the  duty  of  subjects  to 
their  sovereigns  was  grossly  violated. 

The  third  case  supposed  appears  to  be  the  only  one  in  which  the 
renunciation  of  allegiance  is  clearly  justifiable  ;  because  when  the  con- 
tract of  a  king  with  his  people  is  not  only  violated  obviously,  repeatedly, 
and  in  opposition  to  petition  and  remonstrance,  but  a  mercenary  sol- 
dieiy  is  employed  against  those  whom  he  is  bound  to  protect,  and  the 
fear  of  foreign  force  and  compulsion  is  also  suspended  over  them  to 
compel  the  surrender  of  those  rights  which  are  accorded  to  them  both 
by  the  laws  of  God,  and  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  kingdom,  the 
resistance  of  public  feeling  and  sentiment,  and  that  of  the  constitutional 
authorities,  is  no  longer  available ;  and  such  a  sovereign  does,  in  fact, 
lose  his  rights  by  a  hostile  denial  of  his  duties,  in  opposition  to  his  con- 
tract with  his  people.  Such  a  case  arose  in  this  country  at  the  revo- 
lution of  1688  ;  it  was  one  so  clear  and  indubitable,  as  to  carry  with  it 
the  calm  and  deliberate  sense  of  the  vast  majority  of  all  ranks  of 
society ;  and  the  whole  was  stamped  with  the  character  of  a  dehberate 
national  act,  not  that  of  a  faction.  This  resistance  was  doubtless  justi- 
fiable. It  involved  no  opposition  to  government  as  such,  but  was  made 
for  the  purpose  of  serving  the  ends  of  good  government,  and  the  pre- 
servation of  the  very  principles  of  the  constitution.  Nor  did  it  imply 
any  resistance  to  the  existing  power  in  any  respect  in  which  it  was 
invested  with  any  right,  either  by  the  laws  of  God,  or  those  of  the  realm. 
It  will,  however,  appear  that  here  was  a  concurrence  of  circumstances 
which  rendered  the  case  one  which  can  very  rarely  occur.  It  was  not 
the  act  of  a  few  individuals ;  nor  of  mere  theorists  in  forms  of  govern- 
ment ;  nor  was  it  the  result  of  unfounded  jealousy  or  alarm ;  nor  was 
it  the  work  of  either  the  populace  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  an  aristocratic 

2 


570  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

faction  on  the  other ;  but  of  the  people  under  their  natural  guides  and 
leaders, — the  nobility  and  gentry  of  the  land :  nor  were  any  private 
interests  involved,  the  sole  object  being  the  public  weal,  and  the  main- 
tenance of  the  laws.  When  such  circumstances  and  principles  meet, 
similar  acts  may  be  justified ;  but  in  no  instance  of  an  equivocal  cha- 
racter. 

The  question  of  a  subject's  duty  in  case  of  the  existence  of  rival 
supreme  powers,  is  generally  a  very  difficult  one,  at  least  for  some  time. 
When  the  question  of  right  which  hes  between  them  divides  a  nation, 
he  who  follows  his  conscientious  opinion  as  to  this  point  is  doubtless 
morally  safe,  and  he  ought  to  follow  it  at  the  expense  of  any  inconve- 
nience. But  when  a  power  is  settled  de  facto  in  the  possession  of  the 
government,  although  the  right  of  its  claim  should  remain  questionable 
in  the  minds  of  any,  there  appears  a  limit  beyond  which  no  man  can  be 
fairly  required  to  withhold  his  full  allegiance.  Where  that  limit  lies  it 
is  difficult  to  say,  and  individual  conscience  must  have  considerable 
latitude ;  but  perhaps  the  general  rule  may  be,  that  when  continued 
resistance  would  be  manifestly  contrary  to  the  general  welfare  of  the 
whole,  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  He  who  changes  the  "  powers  that  be" 
at  his  sovereign  pleasure,  has  in  his  providence  permitted  or  established 
a  new  order  of  things  to  which  men  are  bound  to  conform. 

Whether  men  are  at  liberty  to  resist  their  lawful  princes  when  perse- 
cuted by  them  for  conscience'  sake,  is  a  question  which  brings  in  addi- 
tional considerations ;  because  of  that  patience  and  meekness  which 
Christ  has  enjoined  upon  his  followers  when  they  suffer  for  his  religion. 
When  persecution  falls  upon  a  portion  only  of  the  subjects  of  a  country, 
it  appears  their  clear  duty  to  submit,  rather  than  to  engage  in  plots  and 
conspiracies  against  the  persecuting  power  ;  practices  which  never  can 
consist  with  Christian  moderation  and  truth.  But  when  it  should  fall 
upon  a  people  constituting  a  distinct  state,  though  united  politically  with 
some  other,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Waldenses,  then  the  persecution,  if 
carried  to  the  violation  of  liberty,  life,  and  property,  would  involve  the 
violation  of  political  rights  also,  and  so  nullify  the  compact  which  has 
guaranteed  protection  to  all  innocent  subjects.  A  national  resistance 
on  these  grounds  would,  for  the  foregoing  reasons,  stand  on  a  very  dif- 
ferent basis. 

No  questions  of  this  kind  can  come  before  a  Christian  man,  however, 
without  placing  him  under  the  necessity  of  considering  the  obligation 
of  many  duties  of  a  much  clearer  character  than,  in  almost  any  case, 
the  duty  of  resistance  to  the  government  under  which  he  lives,  can  be. 
He  is  bound  to  avoid  all  intemperance  and  uncharitableness,  and  he  is 
not,  therefore,  at  liberty  to  become  a  factious  man ;  he  is  forbidden  to 
indulge  malignity,  and  is  restrained  therefore  from  revenge ;  he  is 
taught  to  be  distrustful  of  his  own  judgment,  and  must  only  admit  that 
2 


THIRD.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  571 

of  the  wise  and  good  to  be  influential  with  him ;  he  must  therefore  avoid 
all  association  with  low  and  violent  men,  the  rabble  of  a  state,  and  their 
designing  leaders  ;  he  is  bound  to  submission  to  rulers  in  all  cases  where 
a  superior  duty  cannot  be  fairly  established ;  and  he  is  warned  of  the 
danger  of  resistance  "  to  the  power,"  as  bringing  after  it  Divine  "  con- 
demnation," wherever  the  case  is  not  clear,  and  not  fully  within  the 
principles  of  the  word  of  God.  So  circumstemced,  the  allegiance  of  a 
Christian  people  is  secured  to  all  governors,  and  to  all  governments, 
except  in  very  extreme  cases  which  can  very  seldom  arise  in  the  judg- 
ment of  any  who  respect  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God  ;  and  thus 
this  branch  of  Christian  morality  is  established  upon  principles  which  at 
once  uphold  the  majesty  of  [government,]  and  throw  their  shield  over 
the  liberties  of  the  people  ;  principles  which  in  the  wisdom  of  God 
beautifully  entwine  [Jidelity,]  freedom,  and  peace. 

2 


PART  FOURTH. 

THE  INSTITUTIONS  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Christian  Church. 

The  Church  of  Christ,  in  its  largest  sense,  consists  of  all  who  have 
been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  who  thereby  make  a  visible 
profession  of  faith  in  his  Divine  mission,  and  in  all  the  doctrines  taught 
by  him  and  his  inspired  apostles.  In  a  stricter  sense,  it  consists  of 
those  who  are  vitally  united  to  Christ,  as  the  members  of  the  body  to 
the  head,  and  who,  being  thus  imbued  with  spiritual  life,  walk  no  longer 
"after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit."  Taken  in  either  view,  it  is  a 
visible  society,  bound  to  observe  the  laws  of  Christ,  its  sole  Head  and 
Lord.  Visible  fellowship  with  this  Church  is  the  duty  of  all  who  pro- 
fess faith  in  Christ ;  for  in  this,  in  part,  consists  that  "  confession  of 
Christ  before  men,"  on  which  so  much  stress  is  laid  in  the  discourses 
of  our  Lord.  It  is  obligatory  on  all  who  are  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity  to  be  baptized  ;  and  upon  all  thus  baptized  frequently  to 
partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  order  to  testify  their  continued  faith  in 
that  great  and  distinguishing  doctrine  of  the  religion  of  Christ,  the 
redemption  of  the  world  by  the  sacrificial  effusion  of  his  blood,  both  of 
which  suppose  union  Avith  his  Church.  The  ends  of  this  fellowship  or 
association  are,  to  proclaim  our  faith  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  Divine 
in  its  origin,  and  necessary  to  salvation ;  to  offer  public  prayers  and 
thanksgivings  to  God  through  Christ,  as  the  sole  Mediator ;  to  hear 
God's  word  explained  and  enforced  ;  and  to  place  ourselves  under  that 
discipline  which  consists  in  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  Christ, 
(which  are  the  rules  of  the  society  called  the  Church,)  upon  the  mem- 
bers, not  merely  by  general  exhortation,  but  by  kind  oversight,  and 
personal  injunction  and  admonition  of  its  ministers.  All  these  .low  from 
the  original  obligation  to  avow  our  faith  in  Christ,  and  our  love  to  him. 

The  Church  of  Christ  being  then  a  visible  and  permanent  society, 
bound  to  observe  certain  rites,  and  to  obey  certain  rules,  the  existence 
of  government  in  it  is  necessarily  supposed.  All  religious  rites  suppose 
ORDER,  all  order  direction  and  control,  and  these  a  directive  and 
CONTROLLING  POWDER.  Again,  all  laws  are  nugatory  without  enforce- 
ment, in  the  present  mixed  and  imperfect  state  of  society ;  and  all 
enforcement  supposes  an  executive.  If  baptism  be  the  door  of  admis- 
sion into  the  Church,  some  must  judge  of  the  fitness  of  candidates,  and 
2 


THEOLOGICAL    LXSTITUTES-  573 

administrators  of  the  rite  must  be  appointed  ;  if  the  Lord's  Supper  must 
be  partaken  of,  the  times  and  the  mode  arc  to  be  determined,  the  quali- 
fications of  communicants  judged  of,  and  the  administration  placed  in 
suitable  hands ;  if  worship  must  be  social  and  public,  here  again  there 
must  be  an  appointment  of  times,  an  order,  and  an  administration  ;  if 
the  word  of  God  is  to  be  read  and  preached,  then  readers  and  preachers 
are  necessary  ;  if  the  continuance  of  any  one  in  the  fellowship  of  Chris- 
tians be  conditional  upon  good  conduct,  so  that  the  purity  and  credit  of 
the  Church  may  be  guarded,  then  the  power  of  enforcing  discipline 
must  be  lodged  somewhere.  Thus  government  flows  necessarily  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  institution  of  the  Christian  Church ;  and  since 
this  institution  has  the  authority  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  its  government  was  left  unprovided  for ;  and  if  they 
have  in  fact  made  such  a  provision,  it  is  no  more  a  matter  of  mere 
option  with  Christians  whether  they  will  be  subject  to  government  in 
the  Church,  than  it  is  optional  with  them  to  confess  Christ  by  becoming 
its  members. 

The  nature  of  this  government,  and  the  persons  to  whom  it  is  com- 
mitted, are  both  points  which  we  must  briefly  examine  by  the  light  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures. 

As  to  the  first,  it  is  wholly  spiritual : — "  My  kingdom,"  says  our 
Lord,  "  is  not  of  this  world."  The  Church  is  a  society  founded  upon 
faith,  and  united  by  mutual  love,  for  the  personal  edification  of  its  mem- 
bers in  holiness,  and  for  the  rehgious  benefit  of  the  world.  The  nature 
of  its  government  is  thus  determined ; — it  is  concerned  only  with  spi- 
ritual objects.  It  cannot  employ  force  to  compel  men  into  its  pale ; 
for  the  only  door  of  the  Church  is  faith,  to  which  there  can  be  no  com- 
pulsion,— "  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized"  becomes  a  member.  It 
cannot  inflict  pains  and  penalties  upon  the  disobedient  and  refractory, 
like  civil  governments ;  for  the  only  punitive  discipline  authorized  in 
the  New  Testament,  is  comprised  in  "  admonition,"  "  reproof,"  "  sharp 
rebukes,"  and,  finally,  "  excision  from  the  society."  The  last  will  be 
better  understood  if  we  consider  the  special  relations  in  which  true 
Christians  stand  to  each  other,  and  the  duties  resulting  from  them. 
They  are  members  of  one  body,  and  are  therefore  bound  to  tenderness 
and  sympathy  ;  they  are  the  conjoint  instructers  of  others,  and  are  there- 
fore to  strive  to  be  of  "  one  judgment ;"  they  are  brethren,  and  they 
are  to  love  one  another  as  such,  that  is,  with  an  afl'ection  more  special 
than  that  general  good  will  which  they  are  commanded  to  bear  to  all 
mankind  ;  they  are  therefore  to  seek  the  intimacy  of  friendly  society 
among  themselves,  and,  except  in  the  ordinary  and  courteous  inter- 
course of  life,  they  are  bound  to  keep  themselves  separate  from  the 
world ;  they  are  enjoined  to  do  good  unto  all  men,  but  "  specially  to 
them  that  are  of  the  household  of  faith ;"  and  they  are  forbidden  '<  to 


574  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

eat"  at  the  Lord's  table  with  immoral  persons,  that  is,  with  those  who, 
although  they  continue  their  Christian  profession,  dishonour  it  by  their 
practice.  With  these  relations  of  Christians  to  each  other  and  to  the 
world,  and  their  correspondent  duties  before  our  minds,  we  may  easily 
interpret  the  nature  of  that  extreme  discipline  which  is  vested  in  the 
Church.  "  Persons  who  will  not  hear  the  Church"  are  to  be  held  "  as 
heathen  men  and  publicans,"  as  those  who  are  not  members  of  it ;  that 
is,  they  are  to  be  separated  from  it,  and  regarded  as  of"  the  world,"  quite 
out  of  the  range  of  the  above-mentioned  relations  of  Christians  to  each 
other,  and  their  correspondent  duties ;  but  still,  like  "  heathen  men  and 
pubhcans,"  they  are  to  be  the  objects  of  pity,  and  general  benevolence. 
Nor  is  this  extreme  discipline  to  be  hastily  inflicted  before  "  a  first  and 
second  admonition,"  nor  before  those  who  are  "  spiritual"  have  attempted 
"  to  restore  a  brother  overtaken  by  a  fault ;"  and  when  the  "  wicked 
person"  is  "  put  away,"  still  the  door  is  to  be  kept  open  for  his  recep- 
tion again  upon  repentance.  The  true  excommunication  of  the  Chris- 
tian  Church  is  therefore  a  merciful  and  considerate  separation  of  an 
incorrigible  offender  from  the  body  of  Christians,  without  any  infliction 
of  civil  pains  or  penalties.  "  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  ye 
have  received  from  us,"  2  Thess.  iii,  6.  "  Purge  out  therefore  the  old 
leaven,  that  ye  may  be  a  new  lump,"  1  Cor.  v,  5.  "  But  now  I  have 
Written  to  you  not  to  keep  company,  if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother 
be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunkard, 
or  an  extortioner,  with  such  a  one,  no  not  to  eat,"  1  Cor.  v,  11.  This 
then  is  the  moral  discipline  which  is  imperative  upon  the  Church  of 
Christ,  and  its  government  is  criminally  defective  whenever  it  is  not 
enforced.  On  the  other  hand,  the  disabilities  and  penalties  which  esta- 
blished Churches  in  different  places  have  connected  with  these  sen- 
tences of  excommunication,  have  no  countenance  at  all  in  Scripture, 
and  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  spiritual  character  and  ends  of  the 
Christian  association. 

As  to  the  second  point, — ^the  persons  to  whom  the  government  of  the 
Church  is  committed,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  composition,  so  to 
speak,  of  the  primitive  Church,  as  stated  in  the  New  Testament. 

A  full  enunciation  of  these  offices  we  find  in  Ephesians  iv,  11  :  "And 
he  gave  some,  apostles ;  and  some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ; 
and  some,  pastors  and  teachers ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ."  Of  these, 
the  office  of  apostle  is  allowed  by  all  to  have  been  confined  to  those 
immediately  commissioned  by  Christ  to  witness  the  fact  of  his  miracles 
and  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  to  reveal  the  complete  system 
of  Christian  doctrine  and  duty ;  confirming  their  extraordinary  mission 


\ 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  575 

by  miracles  wrought  by  themselves.  If  by  "  prophets"  we  are  to  un- 
derstand persons  who  foretold  future  events,  then  the  office  was,  from 
its  very  nature,  extraordinary,  and  the  gift  of  prophecy  has  passed  aWay 
with  the  other  miraculous  endowments  of  the  first  age  of  Christianity. 
If,  with  others,  we  understand  that  these  prophets  were  extraordinary 
teachers  raised  up  until  the  Churches  were  settled  under  permanent 
qualified  instructers ;  still  the  office  was  temporary.  The  "  evangelists" 
are  generally  understood  to  be  assistants  of  the  apostles,  who  acted  under 
their  especial  authority  and  direction.  Of  this  number  were  Timothy 
and  Titus  ;  and  as  the  Apostle  Paul  directed  them  to  ordain  bishops  or 
presbyters  in  the  several  Churches,  but  gave  them  no  authority  to  ordain 
successors  to  themselves  in  their  particular  office  as  evangelists,  it  is 
clear  that  the  evangelists  must  also  be  reckoned  among  the  number  of 
extraordinary  and  temporary  ministers  suited  to  the  first  age  of  Chris- 
tianity. Whether  by  "  pastors  and  teachers"  two  offices  be  meant,  or 
one,  has  been  disputed.  The  change  in  the  mode  of  expression  seems 
to  favour  the  latter  view,  and  so  the  text  is  interpreted  by  St.  Jerome, 
and  St.  Augustine  ;  but  the  point  is  of  little  consequence.  A  pastor  was 
a  teacher  ;  although  every  teacher  might  not  be  a  pastor ;  but  in  many 
cases  be  confined  to  the  office  of  subordinate  instruction,  whether  as  an 
expounder  of  doctrine,  a  catechist,  or  even  a  more  private  instructer  of 
those  who  as  yet  were  unacquainted  with  the  first  principles  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Christ.  The  term  pastor  implies  the  duties  both  of  instruction 
and  of  government,  of  feeding  and  of  ruling  the  flock  of  Christ ;  and,  as 
the  presbyters  or  bishops  were  ordained  in  the  several  Churches,  both 
by  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  and  rules  are  left  by  St.  Paul  as  to  their 
appointment,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  these  are  the  "  pastors" 
spoken  of  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  that  they  were  de- 
signed to  be  the  permanent  ministers  of  the  Church ;  and  that  with 
them  both  the  government  of  the  Church  and  the  performance  of  its 
leading  religious  services  were  deposited.  Deacons  had  the  charge 
of  the  gifts  and  offisrings  for  charitable  purposes,  although,  as  appears 
from  Justin  Martyr,  not  in  every  instance  ;  for  he  speaks  of  the 
weekly  oblations  as  being  deposited  with  the  chief  minister,  and  dis- 
tributed by  him. 

Whether  bishops  and  presbyters  be  designations  of  the  same  office, 
or  these  appellatives  express  two  distinct  sacred  orders,  is  a  subject 
which  has  been  controverted  by  Episcopahans  and  Presbyterians  with 
much  warmth  ;  and  whoever  would  fully  enter  into  their  arguments 
from  Scripture  and  antiquity,  must  be  referred  to  this  controversy, 
which  is  too  large  to  be  here  more  than  glanced  at.  The  argument 
drawn  by  the  Presbyterians  from  the  promiscuous  use  of  these  term^s  ia 
the  New  Te^ament,  to  prove  that  the  same  orde?-  of  ministers  is  ex- 
pressed by  them,  appears  incontrovertible.    When  St.  Paul,  for  instance^ 

2 


576  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

sends  for  the  "  elders,"  or  presbyters,  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  to  meet 
him  at  Miletus,  he  thus  charges  them,  "  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to 
all  the  flock,  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers," 
or  bishops.  That  here  the  elders  or  presbyters  are  called  « bishops,'* 
cannot  be  denied,  and  the  very  office  assigned  to  them,  to  "/fed  the 
Church  of  God,"  and  the  injunction,  to  "take  heed  to  the  Jlock,^^  show 
that  the  office  of  elder  or  presbyter  is  the  same  as  that  o^^^ pastor'^  in 
the  passage  just  quoted  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  St.  Paul 
directs  Titus  to  "ordain  elders  (presbyters)  in  every  city,"  and  then 
adds,  as  a  directory  of  ordination,  "  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  &c," 
plainly  marking  the  same  office  by  these  two  convertible  appellations. 
"  Bishops  and  deacons"  are  the  only  classes  of  ministers  addressed  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  ;  and  if  the  presbyters  were  not  understood 
to  be  included  under  the  term  "  bishops,"  the  omission  of  any  notice  of 
this  order  of  ministers  is  not  to  be  accounted  for.  As  the  apostles,  when 
not  engaged  in  their  own  extraordinary  vocation,  appear  to  have  filled 
the  office  of  stated  ministers  in  those  Churches  in  which  they  occasion- 
ally resided  for  considerable  periods  of  time,  they  sometimes  called  them- 
selves presbyters.  "  The  elder,"  presbyter,  "  unto  the  elect  lady,"  2  John 
i,  1.  "  The  elders  (presbyters)  which  are  among  you,  I  exhort,  who  am 
also  an  elder,"  (presbyter,)  and  from  what  follows,  the  highest  offices  of 
teaching  and  government  in  the  Church  are  represented  as  vested  in  the 
presbyters.  "  Feed  the  flock  of  God,  which  is  among  you,  taking  the 
oversight  thereof."  There  seems,  therefore,  to  be  the  most  conclusive 
evidence,  from  the  New  Testament,  that,  after  the  extraordinary  minis- 
try vested  in  apostles,  prophets,  and  evangelists,  as  mentioned  by  St. 
Paul,  had  ceased,  the  feeding  and  oversight,  that  is,  the  teaching  and 
government  of  the  Churches,  devolved  upon  an  order  of  men  indiscrimi- 
nately called  "  pastors,"  "  presbyters,"  and  "  bishops,"  the  two  latter 
names  growing  into  most  frequent  use  ;  and  with  this  the  testimony  of 
the  apostolical  fathers,  so  far  as  their  writings  are  acknowledged  to  be 
free  from  later  interpolations,  agrees. 

It  is  not  indeed  to  be  doubted,  that,  at  a  very  early  period,  in  some 
instances  probably  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  themselves,  a  distinction 
arose  between  bishops  and  presbyters ;  and  the  whole  strength  of  the 
cause  of  the  Episcopalians  lies  in  this  fact.  Still  this  gives  not  the  least 
sanction  to  the  notion  of  bishops  being  a  superior  order  of  ministers  to 
presbyters,  invested,  in  virtue  of  that  order,  and  by  Divine  right,  with 
powers  of  government  both  over  presbyters  and  people,  and  possessing 
exclusively  the  authority  of  ordaining  to  the  sacred  offices  of  the  Church. 
As  little  too  will  that  ancient  distinction  be  found  to  prove  any  thing  in 
favour  of  diocesan  episcopacy,  which  is  of  still  later  introduction. 

Could  it  be  made  clear  that  the  power  of  ordaining  to  the  ministry 
was   given    to   bishops  to   the    exclusion   of  presbyters,    that    would 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  577 

indeed  go  far  to  prove  the  former  a  distinct  and  superior  order  of  minis- 
ters  in  their  original  appointment.  But  there  is  no  pjissage  in  the  New 
Testament  which  gives  this  power  at  all  to  bishops,  as  thus  distinguished 
from  presbyters  ;  while  all  the  examples  of  ordination  which  it  exhibits 
are  confined  to  apostles,  to  evangelists,  or  to  presbyters,  in  conjunction 
with  them.  St.  Paul,  in  2  Timothy  i,  6,  says,  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee 
in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands ;"  but  in  1  Timothy  iv,  14,  he  says,  "  Neglect 
not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  o^  the  presbytery  ,•"  which  two  passages,  referring, 
as  they  plainly  do,  to  the  same  event,  the  setting  apart  of  Timothy  for 
the  ministry,  show  that  the  presbytery  were  associated  with  St.  Paul  in 
the  office  of  ordination,  and  farther  prove  that  the  exclusive  assumption 
of  this  power,  as  by  Divine  right,  by  bishops,  is  an  aggression  upon  the 
rights  of  presbyters,  for  which  not  only  can  no  Scriptural  authority  be 
pleaded,  but  which  is  in  direct  opposition  to  it. 

The  early  distinction  made  between  bishops  and  presbyters  may  be 
easily  accounted  for,  without  allowing  this  assumed  distinction  of  order. 
In  some  of  the  Churches  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the 
apostles  ordained  several  elders  or  presbyters,' partly  to  supply  the  pre- 
sent need,  and  to  provide  for  the  future  increase  of  believers,  as  it  is 
observed  by  Clemens  in  his  epistle.     Another  reason  would  also  urge 
this  : — Before  the  building  of  spacious  edifices  for  the  assemblies  of  the 
Christians  living  in  one  city,  and  in  its  iieighbourhood,  in  common,  their 
meetings  for  public  worship  must  necessarily  have  been  held  in  different 
houses  or  rooms  obtained  for  the  purpose ;  and  to  each  assembly  an 
elder  would  be  requisite  for  the  performance  of  worship.     That  these 
elders  or  presbyters  had  the  power  of  government  in  the  Churches  can- 
not be  denied,  because  it  is  expressly  assigned  to  them  in  Scripture.     It 
was  inherent  in  their  pastoral  office  ;  and  '*  the  elders  that  rule  well," 
were  to  be  "  counted  worthy  of  double  honour."     A  number  of  elders, 
therefore,  being  ordained  by  the  apostles  to  one  Church,  gave  rise  to 
the  ccetus  presbyterorum,  in  which  assembly  the  affairs  of  the  Church 
were  attended  to,  and  measures  taken  for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel,  by 
the  aid  of  the  common  counsel  and  efforts  of  the  whole.     This  meeting 
of  presbyters  would  naturally  lead  to  thfe  appointment,  whether  by 
seniority  or  by  election,  of  one  to  preside  over  the  proceedings  of  this 
assembly  for  the  sake  of  order ;  and  to  him  was  given  the  title  of  angel 
of  the  Church,  and  bishop  by  way  of  eminence.     The  latter  title  came 
in  time  to  be  exclusively  used  of  the  presiding  elder,  because  of  that 
special  oversight  imposed  upon  him  by  his  office,  and  which,  as  Churches 
were  raised  up  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  larger  cities,  would  also 
naturally  be  extended  over  them.     Independently  of  his  fellow  presby. 
ters,  however,  he  did  nothing. 

Vol.  II.  37 


578  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  whole  of  this  arrangement  shows,  that  in  those  particulars  in 
which  they  were  left  free  by  the  Scriptures,  the  primitive  Christians 
adopted  that  arrangement  for  tlie  government  of  the  Church  which  pro- 
mised to  render  it  most  efficient  for  the  maintenance  of  truth  and  piety  ; 
but  they  did  not  at  this  early  period  set  up  that  unscriptural  distinction  of 
order  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  which  obtained  afterward.  Hence 
Jerome,  even  in  the  fourth  century,  contends  against  this  doctrine,  and 
says,  that  before  there  were  parties  in  rehgion.  Churches  were  go- 
verned communi  consilio  presbyter orum  ;  but  that  afterward  it  became  a 
universal  practice,  founded  upon  experience  of  its  expediency,  that  one 
of  the  presbyters  should  be  chosen  by  the  rest  to  be  the  head,  and  that 
the  care  of  the  Church  should  be  committed  to  him.  He  therefore 
exhorts  presbyters  to  remember  that  they  are  subject  by  the  custom  of 
the  Church  to  him  that  presides  over  them ;  and  reminds  bishops  that 
they  are  greater  than  presbyters,  rather  by  custom  than  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  Lord;  and  that  the  Church  ought  still  to  be  governed 
in  common.  The  testimony  of  antiquity  also  shows,  that,  after  epis- 
copacy had  very  greatly  advanced  its  claims,  the  presbyters  continued 
to  be  associated  with  the  bishop  in  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  the 
Church. 

Much  light  is  thrown  upon  the  constitution  of  the  primitive  Churches, 
by  recollecting  that  they  were  formed  very  much  upon  the  model  of  the 
Jewish  synagogues.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  mode  of  pubhc 
worship  in  the  primitive  Church  was  taken  from  the  synagogue  service, 
and  so  also  was  its  arrangement  of  offices.  Each  synagogue  had  its 
rulers,  elders,  or  presbyters,  of  whom  one  was  the  angel  of  the  Church, 
or  minister  of  the  synagogue,  who  superintended  the  public  service ; 
directed  those  that  read  the  Scriptures,  and  offered  up  the  prayers,  and 
blessed  the  people.  The  president  of  the  council  of  elders  or  rulers 
was  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  "  ruler  of  the  synagogue ;"  and  in 
some  places,  as  Acts  xiii,  15,  we  read  of  these  "  rulers"  in  the  plural 
number ;  a  sufficient  proof  that  one  was  not  elevated  i/i  order  above  the 
rest.  The  angel  of  the  Church,  and  the  minister  of  the  synagogue, 
might  be  the  same  as  he  who  was  invested  with  the  office  of  president ; 
or  these  offices  might  be  held  by  others  of  the  elders.  Lightfoot,  indeed, 
states  that  the  rulers  in  each  synagogue  were  three,  while  the  presbyters 
or  elders  were  ten.  To  this  council  of  grave  and  wise  men,  the  affairs  of 
the  synagogue,  both  as  to  worship  and  discipline,  were  committed.  In 
the  synagogue  they  sat  by  themselves  in  a  semicircle,  and  the  people 
before  them,  face  to  face.  This  was  the  precise  form  in  which  the  bishop 
and  presbyters  used  to  sit  in  the  primitive  Churches.  The  description  of 
the  worship  of  the  synagogue  by  a  Jewish  rabbi,  and  that  of  the  primitive 
Church  by  early  Christian  writers,  presents  an  obvious  correspondence. 
"  The  elders,"  says  Maimonides,  "  sit  with  their  faces  toward  the  peo- 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  579 

pie,  and  their  backs  to  the  place  where  the  law  is  deposited  ;  and  all 
the  people  sit  rank  before  rank ;  so  the  faces  of  all  the  people  are 
toward  the  sanctuary,  and  toward  the  elders ;  and  when  the  minister  of 
the  sanctuaiy  standeth  up  to  prayer,  he  standeth  with  his  face  toward 
the  sanctuary,  as  do  the  rest  of  the  people."  In  the  same  order  the  first 
Christians  sat  with  their  faces  toward  the  bishops  and  presbyters,  first  to 
hear  the  Scriptures  read  by  the  proper  reader  ;  "  then,"  says  Justin 
Martyr,  "  the  reader  sitting  down,  the  president  of  the  assembly  stands 
up  and  makes  a  sermon  of  instruction  and  exhortation ;  after  this 
is  ended,  we  all  stand  up  to  prayers ;  prayers  being  ended,  the  bread, 
wine,  and  water  are  all  brought  forth ;  then  the  president  again  praying 
and  praising  to  his  utmost  ability,  the  people  testify  their  consent  by 
saying,  Amen."  {Apol.  2.)  "  Here  we  have  the  Scriptures  read  by  one 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  as  in  the  synagogue  ;  after  which  follows 
the  word  of  exhortation  by  the  president  of  the  assembly,  who  answers 
to  the  minister  of  the  synagogue  ;  after  this,  public  prayers  are  per- 
formed by  the  same  person;  then  the  solemn  acclamation  of  amen  by  the 
people,  which  was  the  undoubted  practice  of  the  synagogue."  {Stilling' 
fieeVs  Irenicum.)  Ordination  of  presbyters  or  elders  is  also  from  the 
Jews.  Their  priests  were  not  ordained,  but  succeeded  to  their  office 
by  birth  ;  but  the  rulers  and  elders  of  the  synagogue  received  ordination 
by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer. 

Such  was  the  model  which  the  apostles  followed  in  providing  for  the 
future  regulation  of  the  Churches  they  had  raised  up.  They  took  it, 
not  from  the  temple  and  its  priesthood ;  for  that  was  typical,  and  was 
then  passing  away.  But  they  found  in  the  institution  of  syna- 
gogues a  plan  admirably  adapted  to  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  Chris- 
tianity, one  to  which  some  of  the  first  converts  in  most  places  were 
accustomed,  and  which  was  capable  of  being  appHed  to  the  new  dispen- 
sation without  danger  of  Judaizing.  It  secured  the  assembhng  of  the 
people  on  the  Sabbath,  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  the  preaching  of 
sermons,  aiKi  the  offering  of  public  prayer  and  thanksgiving.  It  pro- 
vided too  for  the  government  of  the  Church  by  a  council  of  presbyters, 
ordained  solemnly  to  their  office  by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer ; 
and  it  allowed  of  that  presidency  of  one  presbyter  chosen  by  the  others, 
which  was  useful  for  order  and  for  unity,  and  by  which  age,  piety,  and 
gifts  might  preserve  their  proper  influence  in  the  Church*  The  advance 
from  this  state  of  Scriptural  episcopacy  to  episcopacy  under  another 
form  was  the  work  of  a  later  age. 

When  the  Gospel  made  its  way  into  towns  and  villages,  the  con. 
cerns  of  the  Christians  in  these  places  naturally  fell  under  the  cogni- 
zance  and  direction  of  the  bishops  of  the  neighbouring  cities.  Thus 
diocesses  were  gradually  formed,  comprehending  districts  of  country, 
of  different  extent.      These  diocesses  were  originally  called  <7rapo»Kia», 


680  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

parishes,  and  the  word  hmxy](iig,  diocess,  was  not  used  in  its  modern 
sense  till  at  least  the  fourth  century ;  and  when  we  find  Ignatius 
describing  it  as  the  duty  of  a  bishop,  "  to  speak  to  each  member  of  the 
Church  separately,  to  seek  out  all  by  name,  even  the  slaves  of  both 
sexes,  and  to  advise  every  one  of  the  flock  in  the  affair  of  marriage," 
diocesses,  as  one  observes,  must  have  been  very  limited,  or  the  labour 
inconceivably  great. 

"As  Christianity  increased  and  overspread  all  parts,  and  especially 
the  cities  of  the  empire,  it  was  found  necessary  yet  farther  to  enlarge 
the  episcopal  office  ;  and  as  there  was  commonly  a  bishop  in  every  great 
city,  so  in  the  metropolis,  (as  the  Romans  called  it,)  the  mother  city  of 
every  province,  (wherein  they  had  courts  of  civil  judicature,)  there  was 
an  ARCHBISHOP  or  a  metropolitan,  who  had  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
over  all  the  Churches  within  that  province.  He  was  superior  to  all 
the  bishops  within  those  limits  ;  to  him  it  belonged  to  ordain  or  to  ratify 
the  elections  and  ordinations  of  all  the  bishops  within  his  province,  inso- 
much that  without  his  confirmation  they  were  looked  upon  as  null  and 
void.  Once  at  least  every  year  he  was  to  summon  the  bishops  under 
him  to  a  synod,  to  inquire  into  and  direct  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  within 
that  province ;  to  inspect  the  lives  and  manners,  the  opinions  and  prin- 
ciples of  his  bishops ;  to  admonish,  reprove,  and  suspend  them  that 
were  disorderly  and  irregular  ;  if  any  controversies  or  contentions  hap- 
pened  between  any  of  them,  he  was  to  have  the  hearing  and  determina. 
tion  of  them ;  and  indeed  no  matter  of  moment  was  done  within  the 
whole  province,  without  first  consulting  him  in  the  case.  When  this 
office  of  metropolitan  first  began,  I  find  not ;  only  this  we  are  sure  of, 
that  the  council  of  Nice,  settling  the  just  rights  and  privileges  of  metro- 
politan bishops,  speaks  of  them  as  a  thing  of  ancient  date,  ushering  in  the 
canon  with  an  a^-^^oncn  b&'/\  xparsjrw,  Let  ancient  customs  still  take  place. 
The  original  of  the  institution  seems  to  have  been  partly  to  comply 
with  the  people's  occasions,  who  oft  resorted  to  the  metropolis  for  des- 
patch of  their  aflfairs,  and  so  might  fitly  discharge  their  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical both  at  once ;  and  partly  because  of  the  great  confluence  of 
people  to  that  city :  that  the  bishop  of  it  might  have  pre-eminence 
above  the  rest,  and  the  honour  of  the  Church  bear  some  proportion  to 
that  of  the  state. 

"  After  this  sprung  up  another  branch  of  the  episcopal  office,  as  much 
superior  to  that  of  metropolitans,  as  theirs  was  to  ordinary  bishops ; 
these  were  called  primates  and  patriarchs,  and  had  jurisdiction  over 
many  provinces.  For  the  understanding  of  this,  it  is  necessary  to 
know,  that  when  Christianity  came  to  be  fully  settled  in  the  world,  they 
contrived  to  model  the  external  government  of  the  Church,  as  near  as 
might  be,  to  the  civil  government  of  the  Roman  empire  ;  the  parallel  is 
most  exactly  drawn  by  an  ingenious  person  of  our  own  nation ;  the  sum 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  581 

of  it  is  this: — The  whole  empire  of  Rome  was  divided  into  thirteen 
diocesses,  (so  they  called  those  divisions,)  these  contained  about  one  hurt, 
dred  and  twenty  provinces,  and  every  province  several  cities.  Now, 
as  in  every  city  there  was  a  temporal  magistrate  for  the  executing  of 
justice,  and  keeping  the  peace,  both  for  that  city  and  the  towns  round 
about  it ;  so  was  there  also  a  bishop  for  spiritual  order  and  government, 
whose  jurisdiction  was  of  like  extent  and  latitude.  In  every  province 
there  was  a  proconsul  or  president,  whose  seat  was  usually  at  the  metro- 
polis, or  chief  city  of  the  province  ;  and  hither  all  inferior  cities  came 
for  judgment  in  matters  of  importance.  And  in  proportion  to  this  there 
was  in  the  same  city  an  archbishop  or  metropolitan,  for  matters  of  eccle- 
siastical concernment.  Lastly,  in  every  diocess  the  emperors  had  their 
vicarii  or  lieutenants,  who  dwelt  in  the  principal  city  of  the  diocess, 
where  all  imperial  edicts  were  published,  and  from  whence  they  were 
sent  abroad  into  the  several  provinces,  and  where  was  the  chief  tribunal 
where  all  causes  not  determinable  elsewhere,  were  decided.  And,  to 
answer  this,  there  was  in  the  same  city  a  primate,  to  whom  the  last 
determination  of  all  appeals  from  all  the  provinces  in  differences  of  the 
clergy,  and  the  sovereign  care  of  all  the  diocess  for  sundry  points  of  spi- 
ritual government,  did  belong.  This,  in  short,  is  the  sum  of  the  account 
which  that  learned  man  gives  of  this  matter.  So  that  the  patriarch,  as 
superior  to  the  metropolitans,  was  to  have  under  his  jurisdiction  not  any 
one  single  province,  but  a  whole  diocess,  (in  the  old  Roman  notion  of 
that  word,)  consisting  of  many  provinces.  To  him  belonged  the  ordina- 
tion of  all  the  metropolitans  that  were  under  him,  as  also  the  summoning 
them  to  councils,  the  correcting  and  reforming  the  misdemeanors  they 
were  guilty  of;  and  from  his  judgment  and  sentence,  in  things  properly 
within  his  cognizance,  there  lay  no  appeal.  To  this  I  shall  only  add 
what  Salmasius  has  noted,  that  as  the  diocess  that  was  governed  by  the 
vicarius  had  many  provinces  under  it,  so  the  prcBfectus  prcBtorio  had 
several  diocesses  under  him  :  and  in  proportion  to  this,  probable  it 
was,  that  pairiarclis  were  first  brought  in,  who,  if  not  superior  to 
primates  in  jurisdiction  and  power,  were  yet  in  honour,  by  reason  of 
the  dignity  of  those  cities  where  their  sees  were  fixed,  as  at  Rome,  Con- 
stantinople, Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem."  {Cavers  Prim,itive 
Christianity.) 

Thus  diocesan  bishops,  metropolitans,  primates,  patriarchs,  and  finally 
the  pope,  came  in,  which  offices  are  considered  as  corruptions  or  im- 
provements ;  as  dictated  by  the  necessities  of  the  Church,  or  as  instan- 
ces of  worldly  ambition  ;  as  of  Divine  right,  or  from  Satan  ;  according 
to  the  different  views  of  those  who  have  written  on  such  subjects.  As 
to  them  all  it  may,  however,  be  said,  that,  so  far  as  they  are  pleaded  for 
as  of  Divine  right,  they  have  no  support  from  the  New  Testament ;  and 
if  they  are  placed  upon  the  only  ground  on  which  they  can  be  reasona- 


682  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

bly  discussed,  that  of  necessity  and  good  polity,  they  must  be  tried  by 
circumstances,  and  their  claims  of  authority  be  so  defined  that  it  may  be 
known  how  far  they  are  compatible  with  those  principles  with  which 
the  New  Testament  abounds,  although  it  contains  no  formal  plan  of 
Church  government.  The  only  Scriptural  objection  to  episcopacy,  as 
it  is  understood  in  modern  times,  is  its  assumption  of  superiority  of  order, 
of  an  exclusive  right  to  govern  the  pastors  as  well  as  the  flock,  and  to 
ordain  to  the  Christian  ministry.  These  exclusive  powers  are  by  the 
New  Testament  nowhere  granted  to  bishops  in  distinction  from  presby- 
ters.  The  government  of  pastors  as  well  as  people,  was  at  first  in  the 
assembly  of  presbyters,  who  were  individually  accountable  to  that  ruling 
body,  and  that  whether  they  had  a  president  or  not.  So  also  as  to  ordina- 
tion ;  it  was  a  right  in  each,  although  used  by  several  together,  for  better 
security ;  and  even  when  the  presence  of  a  bishop  came  to  be  thought 
necessary  to  the  validity  of  ordination,  the  presbyters  were  not  excluded. 

As  for  the  argument  from  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  times  of 
the  apostles,  could  the  fact  be  made  out  it  would  only  trace  diocesan 
bishops  to  the  bishops  of  parishes ;  those,  to  the  bishops  of  single 
Churches ;  and  bishops  of  a  supposed  superior  order,  to  bishops  who 
never  thought  themselves  more  than  presiding  presbyters,  primi  inter 
pares.  This  tlierefore  would  only  show  that  an  unscriptural  assumption 
of  distinct  orders  has  been  made,  which  that  succession,  if  established, 
would  refute.  But  the  succession  itself  is  imaginary.  Even  Epipha- 
nius,  a  bishop  of  the  fourth  century,  gives  this  account  of  things,  "  that 
the  apostles  were  not  able  to  settle  all  things  at  once.  But  according 
to  the  number  of  believers,  and  the  qualifications  for  the  different  offices 
which  those  whom  they  found  appeared  to  possess,  they  appointed  in 
some  places  only  a  bishop  and  deacons  ;  in  others  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons ;  in  others  a  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons :" — a  statement  fatal 
to  the  argument  from  succession.  As  for  the  pretended  catalogues  of 
bishops  of  the  diflTerent  Churches  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  exhibited 
by  some  ecclesiastical  writers,  they  are  filled  up  by  forgeries  and  inven- 
tions of  later  times.  Eusebius,  more  honest,  begins  his  catalogue  with 
declaring,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  say  who  were  the  disciples  of  the  apos- 
tles that  were  appointed  to  feed  the  Churches  which  they  planted,  ex- 
cepting only  those  whom  we  read  of  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul. 

Whether  episcopacy  may  not  be  a  matter  of  prudential  regulation,  is 
another  question.  We  think  it  often  may  ;  and  that  Churches  are  quite 
at  liberty  to  adopt  this  mode,  provided  they  maintain  St.  Jerome's  dis- 
tinction, that  ^'  bishops  are  greater  than  presbyters  rather  by  custom 
than  by  appointment  of  the  Lord,  and  that  still  the  Church  ought  to  be 
governed  in  common,"  that  is,  by  bishops  and  presbyters  united.  It  was 
on  this  ground  that  Luther  placed  episcopacy, — as  useful,  though  not 
of  Divine  right ;  it  was  by  admitting  this  liberty  in  Churches,  that  Cal- 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  583 

vin  and  other  divines  of  the  Reformed  Churches  allowed  episcopacy 
and  diocesan  Churches  to  be  lawful,  there  being  nothing  to  forbid  such 
an  arrangement  in  Scripture,  when  placed  on  tlie  principle  of  expedi- 
ency. Some  divines  of  the  English  Church  have  chosen  to  defend  its  epis- 
copacy  wholly  upon  this  ground,  as  alone  tenable ;  and,  admitting  that 
it  is  safest  to  approach  as  near  as  possible  to  primitive  practice,  have 
proposed  the  restoration  of  presbyters  as  a  senate  to  the  bishop,  the  con- 
traction of  diocesses,  the  placing  of  bishops  in  all  great  towns,  and  the 
molding  of  provincial  sjTiods  ; — thus  raising  the  presbyters  to  their  ori- 
ginal rank,  as  the  bishop's  "  compresbyters,''^  as  Cyprian  himself  calls 
them,  both  in  government  and  in  ordinations. 

As  to  that  kind  of  episcopacy  which  trenches  upon  no  Scriptural  prin- 
ciple, much  depends  upon  circumstances,  and  the  forms  in  which  Chris- 
tian Churches  exist.  When  a  Church  composes  but  one  congregation, 
the  minister  is  unquestionably  a  Scriptural  bishop ;  but  he  is,  and  can 
be,  only  bishop  of  the  flock,  episcopus  gregis.  Of  this  kind,  it  appears 
from  the  extract  given  above  from  Epiphanius,  were  some  of  the  primi- 
tive Churches,  existing,  probably,  in  the  smaller  and  more  remote  places. 
Where  a  number  of  presbyters  were  ordained  to  one  Church,  these 
woiJd,  in  their  common  assembly,  have  the  oversight  and  government  of 
each  other  as  well  as  of  the  people  ;  and,  in  this  their  collective  capa- 
city, they  would  be  episcopi  gregis  et  pastonim.  In  this  manner,  epis- 
copacy, as  implying  the  oversight  and  government  both  of  ministers  and 
their  flocks,  exists  in  Presbyterian  Churches,  and  in  all  others,  by  what- 
ever name  they  are  called,  where  ministers  are  subject  to  the  discipline 
of  Lssemblies  of  ministers  who  admit  to  the  ministry  by  joint  consent, 
and  censure  or  remove  those  who  are  so  appointed.  When  the  ancient 
presbyteries  elected  a  bishop,  he  might  remain,  as  he  appears  to  have 
done  for  some  time,  the  mere  president  of  the  assembly  of  presbyters, 
and  their  organ  of  administration  ;  or  be  constituted,  as  afterward,  a  dis- 
tinct governing  power,  although  assisted  by  the  advice  of  his  presbyters. 
He  was  then  in  person  an  episcopus  gregis  et  pastonim,  and  his  oflficial 
powers  gave  rise  at  length  to  the  unfounded  distinction  of  superior  order. 
But  abating  this  false  principle,  even  diocesan  episcopacy  may  be  con- 
sidered as  in  many  possible  associations  of  Churches  throughout  a  pro- 
vince, or  a  whole  country,  as  an  arrangement  in  some  circumstances 
of  a  wise  and  salutary  nature.  Nor  do  the  evils  which  arose  in  the 
Church  of  Christ  appear  so  attributable  to  this  form  of  government  as 
to  that  too  intimate  connection  of  the  Church  with  the  state,  which  gave 
to  the  former  a  political  character,  and  took  it  from  under  the  salutary- 
control  of  public  opinion, — an  evil  greatly  increased  by  the  subsequent 
destruction  of  religious  liberty,  and  the  coercive  interferences  of  the  civil 
magistrate. 

At  the  same  time,  it  may  be  very  well  questioned,  whether  any  pres- 

2 


584  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

byters  could  lawfully  surrender  into  the  hands  of  a  bishop  their  own 
rights  of  government  and  ordination  without  that  security  for  their  due 
administration  which  arises  from  the  accountability  of  the  administrator. 
That  these  are  rights  which  it  is  not  imperative  upon  the  individual  pos- 
sessing them  to  exercise  individually,  appears  to  have  the  judgment  of 
the  earliest  antiquity,  because  the  assembly  of  presbyters,  which  was 
probably  co-existent  with  the  ordination  of  several  presbyters  to  one 
Church  by  the  apostles,  necessarily  placed  the  exercise  of  the  office  of 
each  under  the  direction  and  control  of  all.  When  therefore  a  bishop 
was  chosen  by  the  presbyters,  and  invested  with  the  government,  and 
the  power  of  granting  orders,  so  long  as  the  presbyters  remained  his 
/counsel,  and  nothing  was  done  but  by  their  concurrence,  they  were  still 
parties  to  the  mode  jn  which  their  own  powers  were  exercised,  and  were 
justifiable  in  placing  the  administration  in  the  hands  of  one,  who  was 
still  dependent  upon  themselves.  In  this  way  they  probably  thought 
that  their  own  powers  might  be  most  efficiently  and  usefully  exercised. 
Provincial  and  national  synods  or  councils,  exercising  a  proper  superin- 
tendence  over  bishops  when  made  even  more  independent  of  their  pres. 
byters  than  was  the  case  in  the  best  periods  of  the  primitive  Church, 
might  also,  if  meeting  frequently  and  regularly,  and  as  a  part  of  an  eccle- 
siastical  system,  affi^rd  the  same  security  for  good  administration,  and 
might  justify  the  surrender  of  the  exercise  of  their  powers  by  the  pres- 
byters. But  when  that  surrender  was  formerly  made,  or  is  at  any  time 
made  now  in  the  constitution  of  Churches,  to  bishops,  or  to  those  hear- 
ing  a  similar  office  however  designated,  without  security  and  control, 
either  by  making  that  office  temporary  and  elective,  or  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  synods  or  assemblies  of  the  ministers  of  a  large  and  united  body 
of  Christians  for  the  purpose  of  supreme  government,  an  office  is  cretted 
which  has  not  only  no  countenance  in  Scripture,  that  of  a  bishop  inde- 
pendent of  presbyters,  but  one  which  implies  an  unlawful  surrender  of 
those  powers,  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  with  which  they  were  invested, 
not  for  their  own  sakes,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church ;  and  which 
they  could  have  no  authority  to  divest  themselves  of  and  to  transfer,  with- 
out retaining  the  power  of  counselling  and  controlling  the  party  charged 
with  the  administration  of  them.  In  other  words,  presbyters  have  a  right, 
under  proper  regulations,  to  appoint  another  to  administer  for  them,  or 
to  consent  to  such  an  arrangement  when  they  find  it  already  existing ; 
but  they  have  no  power  to  divest  themselves  of  these  rights  and  duties 
absolutely.  If  these  principles  be  sound,  modem  episcopacy,  in  many 
Churches,  is  objectionable  in  other  respects  than  as  it  assumes  an  un- 
scriptural  distinction  of  order. 

The  following  is  a  liberal  concession  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy, 
from  a  strenuous  defender  of  that  form  of  government  as  it  exists  in  the 
Church  of  England  : — 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  585 

"Tl  is  not  contended  that  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  of  Eng- 
land, are  at  present  precisely  the  same  that  bishops,  presbyters,  and 
deacons,  were  in  Asia  Minor  seventeen  hundred  years  ago.  We  only 
maintain  that  there  have  always  been  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  in 
the  Christian  Church,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  with  different  powers 
and  functions,  it  is  allowed,  in  different  countries  and  at  different  peri- 
ods ;  but  the  general  principles  and  duties  which  have  respectively  cha- 
racterized these  clerical  orders,  have  been  essentially  the  same  at  all 
times,  and  in  all  places  ;  and  the  variations  which  they  have  undergone, 
have  only  been  such  as  have  ever  belonged  to  all  persons  in  public  situa- 
tions, whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  and  which  are  indeed  inseparable 
from  every  thing  in  which  mankind  are  concerned  in  this  transitory  and 
fluctuating  world. 

"  I  have  thought  it  right  to  take  this  general  view  of  the  ministerial 
office,  and  to  make  these  observations  upon  the  clerical  orders  subsist- 
ing in  this  kingdom,  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  foundation  and 
principles  of  Church  authority,  and  of  showing  that  our  ecclesiastical 
establishment  is  as  nearly  conformable,  as  change  of  circumstances  will 
permit,  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church.  But,  though  I  flatter 
myself  that  I  have  proved  episcopacy  to  be  an  apostolical  institution,  yet 
I  readily  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  precept  in  the  New  Testament 
which  commands  that  every  Church  should  be  governed  by  bishops. 
No  Church  can  exist  without  some  government ;  but  though  there  must 
be  rules  and  orders  for  the  proper  discharge  of  the  offices  of  public 
worship,  though  there  must  be  fixed  regulations  concerning  the  appoint- 
ment of  ministers,  and  though  a  subordination  among  them  is  expedient 
in  the  highest  degree,  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  all  these  things  must  be 
precisely  the  same  in  every  Christian  country  ;  they  may  vary  with  the 
other  var}4ng  circumstances  of  human  society,  with  the  extent  of  a  coun- 
try,  the  manners  of  its  inhabitants,  the  nature  of  its  civil  government, 
and  many  other  peculiarities  which  might  be  specified.  As  it  has  not 
pleased  our  almighty  Father  to  prescribe  any  particular  form  of  civil 
government  for  the  security  of  temporal  comforts  to  his  rational  crea- 
tures,  so  neither  has  he  prescribed  any  particular  form  of  ecclesiastical 
polity  as  absolutely  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  eternal  happiness. 
But  he  has,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  enjoined  obedience  to  all  govern- 
ors,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  and  whatever  may  be  their  denomi« 
nation,  as  essential  to  the  character  of  a  true  Christian.  Thus  the  Gos-' 
pel  only  lays  down  general  principles,  and  leaves  the  application  of  them 
to  men  as  free  agents."  {Bishop  Tomline's  Elements.) 

Bishop  Tomline,  however,  and  the  high  Episcopalians  of  the  Church 
of  England,  contend  for  an  original  distinction  in  the  office  and  order  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  in  which  notion  they  are  contradicted  by  one 
who  may  be  truly  called  the  founder  of  the  Church  of  England,  Arch- 

2 


586  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

bishop  Cranmer,  who  says,  "  The  bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time, 
and  were  not  two  things ;  but  both  one  office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's 
rehgion."  {StilUngjieeVs  Irenicum,  p.  392.) 

On  the  subject  of  the  Chuech  itself,  opinions  as  opposite  or  vary- 
ing as  possible  have  been  held,  down  from  that  of  the  papists,  who  con- 
tend  for  its  visible  unity  throughout  the  world  under  a  visible  head,  to 
that  of  the  Independents,  who  consider  the  universal  Church  as  composed 
of  congregational  Churches,  each  perfect  in  itself,  and  entirely  independ- 
ent of  every  other. 

The  first  opinion  is  manifestly  contradicted  by  the  language  of  the 
apostles,  who,  while  they  teach  that  there  is  but  one  Church,  composed 
of  believers  throughout  the  world,  think  it  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  this 
to  speak  of  "  the  Churches  of  Judea,"  "  of  Achaia,"  "  the  seven  Churches 
of  Asia,"  "  the  Church  at  Ephesus,"  &c.  Among  themselves  the  apostles 
had  no  common  head ;  but  planted  Churches  and  gave  directions  for 
their  government,  in  most  cases  without  any  apparent  correspondence 
with  each  other.  The  popish  doctrine  is  certainly  not  found  in  their 
writings,  and  so  far  were  they  from  making  provision  for  the  govern- 
ment of  this  one  supposed  Church,  by  the  appointment  of  one  visible  and 
exclusive  head,  that  they  provide  for  the  future  government  of  the 
respective  Churches  raised  up  by  them,  in  a  totally  different  manner,  that 
is,  by  the  ordination  of  ministers  for  each  Church,  who  are  indifferently 
called  bishops,  and  presbyters,  and  pastors.  The  only  unity  of  which 
they  speak  is  the  unity  of  the  whole  Church  in  Christ,  the  invisible  Head, 
by  faith  ;  and  the  unity  produced  by  "  fervent  love  toward  each  other." 
Nor  has  the  popish  doctrine  of  the  visible  unity  of  the  Church  any 
countenance  from  early  antiquity.  The  best  ecclesiastical  historians 
have  showed,  that,  through  the  greater  part  of  the  second  century, 
"  the  Christian  Churches  were  independent  of  each  other.  Each 
Christian  assembly  was  a  little  state  governed  by  its  own  laws,  which 
were  either  enacted,  or  at  least  approved  by  the  society.  But  in  pro- 
cess of  time,  all  the  Churches  of  a  province  were  formed  into  one 
large  ecclesiastical  body,  which,  like  confederate  states,  assembled  at 
certain  times  in  order  to  deliberate  about  the  common  interests  of  the 
whole."  {Moslieiiri's  Ecclesiastical  History,  cent.  2,  chap,  ii.)  So  far 
indeed  this  union  of  Churches  appears  to  have  been  a  wise  and  useful 
arrangement,  although  afterward  it  was  carried  to  an  injurious  ex- 
treme, until  finally  it  gave  birth  to  the  assumptions  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  as  universal  bishop  ;  a  claim,  however,  which  when  most  success- 
ful, was  but  partially  submitted  to,  the  Eastern  Churches  having  always 
maintained  their  independence.  No  very  large  association  of  Churches 
of  any  ki-nd  existed  till  toward  the  close  of  the  second  century,  which 
sufficiently  refutes  the  papal  argument  from  antiquity. 

The  independence  of  the  early  Christian  Churches  does  not,  however, 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  587 

appear  to  have  resembled  that  of  the  Churches  which  in  modern  times 
are  called  Independent.  During  the  lives  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists, 
they  were  certainly  subject  to  their  counsel  and  control,  which  proves 
that  the  independency  of  separate  societies  was  not  the  first  form  of  the 
Church.  It  may,  indeed,  he  allowed,  that  some  of  the  smaller  and  more 
insulated  Churches  might,  after  the  death  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists, 
retain  this  form  for  some  considerable  time ;  but  the  larger  Churches, 
in  the  chief  cities,  and  those  planted  in  populous  neighbourhoods,  had 
many  presbyters,  and  as  the  members  multiplied,  they  had  several  sepa- 
rate assemblies  or  congregations,  yet  all  under  the  same  common 
government.  And  when  Churches  were  raised  up  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  cities,  the  appointment  of  chorepiscopij  or  country  bishops,  and  of 
visiting  presbyters,  both  acting  under  the  presb^iery  of  the  city,  with  its 
bishop  at  its  head,  is  sufficiently  in  proof,  that  the  ancient  Churches, 
especially  the  larger  and  more  prosperous  of  them,  existed  in  that  form, 
which  in  modem  times  we  should  call  a  religious  connection,  subject  to 
a  common  government.  This  appears  to  have  arisen  out  of  the  very 
circumstance  of  the  increase  of  the  Church,  through  the  zeal  of  the  first 
Chri^ians ;  and  in  the  absence  of  all  direction  by  the  apostles,  that 
every  new  society  of  believers  raised  should  be  formed  into  an  inde- 
pendent Church,  it  was  doubtless  much  more  in  the  spirit  of  the  very 
first  discipline  exercised  by  the  apostles  and  evangehsts,  (when  none 
of  the  Churches  were  independent,  but  remained  under  the  government 
of  those  who  had  been  chiefly  instrumental  in  raising  them  up,)  to 
place  themselves  under  a  common  inspection,  and  to  unite  the  weak  with 
the  strong,  and  the  newly  converted  with  those  who  were  "  in  Christ 
before  them."  There  was  also  in  this,  greater  security  afforded  both 
for  the  continuance  of  wholesome  doctrine,  and  of  godly  discipline. 

The  persons  appointed  to  feed  and  govern  the  Church  of  Christ  being, 
then,  as  we  have  seen,  those  who  are  called  ^^pastors,^^  a  word  which 
imports  both  care  and  government,  two  other  subjects  claim  our  atten- 
tion,—the  share  which  the  body  of  the  people  have  in  their  own  govern, 
ment  by  their  pastors,  and  the  objects  toward  which  the  power  of  govern- 
ment,  thus  established,  in  the  Church,  is  legitimately  directed. 

As  to  the  first,  some  preliminary  observations  may  be  necessary. 

1.  When  Churches  are  professedly  connected  with,  and  exclusively 
patronized  and  upheld  by,  the  state,  questions  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment arise,  which  are  of  greater  perplexity  and  difficulty  than  when  they 
are  left  upon  their  original  ground,  as  voluntary  and  spiritual  associa- 
tions. The  state  will  not  exclusively  recognize  ministers  without  main- 
taining  some  control  over  their  functions  ;  and  will  not  lend  its  aid  to 
enforce  the  canons  of  an  estabUshed  Church,  without  reserving  to  itself 
some  right  of  appeal,  or  of  interposition.  Hence  a  contest  between  the 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  powers  often  springs  up,  and  one  at  least  gene- 

2 


588  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES,  [PART 

rally  feels  itself  to  be  fettered  by  the  other.  When  an  established  Church 
is  perfectly  tolerant,  and  the  state  allows  freedom  of  dissent  and  separa- 
tion from  it  without  penalties,  these  evils  are  much  mitigated.  But  it  is 
not  my  design  to  consider  a  Church  as  at  all  allied  with  the  state ;  but 
as  deriving  nothing  from  it  except  protection,  and  that  general  countenance 
which  the  influence  of  a  government,  professing  Christianity  and  recog- 
nizing its  laws,  must  aflTord. 

2.  The  only  view  in  which  the  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
appear  to  have  contemplated  the  Churches,  was  that  of  associations 
founded  upon  conviction  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the  obligatory 
nature  of  the  commands  of  Christ.  They  considered  the  pastors  as 
dependent  for  their  support  upon  the  free  contributions  of  the  people ; 
and  the  people  as  bound  to  sustain,  love,  and  obey  them  in  all  things 
lawful,  that  is,  in  all  things  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  they  had  received 
in  the  Scriptures,  and,  in  things  indifferent,  to  pay  respectful  deference 
to  them.  They  enjoined  it  upon  the  pastors  to  "  rule  well,"  "  diligently," 
and  with  fidelity,  in  executing  the  directions  they  had  given  them;  — 
to  silence  all  teachers  of  false  doctrines,  and  their  adherents ; — to  re- 
prove unruly  and  immoral  members  of  the  Church,  and,  if  incorrigible, 
to  put  them  away.  On  the  other  hand,  should  any  of  their  pastors  or 
teachers  err  in  doctrine,  the  people  are  enjoined  not  "  to  receive  them," 
to  "  turn  away"  from  them,  and  not  even  to  bid  them  "  God  speed." 
The  rule  which  forbids  Christians  "  to  eat,"  that  is,  to  communicate  at 
the  Lord's  table  with  an  immoral  "  brother,"  held,  of  course,  good,  when 
that  brother  was  a  pastor.  Thus  pastors  were  put  by  them  under  the 
influence  of  the  public  opinion  of  the  Churches ;  and  the  remedy  of 
separating  from  them,  in  manifest  defections  of  doctrine  and  morals,  was 
afforded  to  the  sound  members  of  a  Church,  should  no  power  exist,  able 
or  inclined  to  silence  the  offending  pastor  and  his  party.  In  all  this, 
principles  were  recognized,  which,  had  they  not  been  in  future  times 
lost  sight  of  or  violated,  would  have  done  much,  perhaps  ervery  thing,  to 
preserve  some  parts  of  the  Church,  at  least,  in  soundness  of  faith,  and 
purity  of  manners.  A  perfect  rehgious  liberty  is  always  supposed  by 
the  apostles  to  exist  among  Christians  ;  no  compulsion  of  the  civil  power 
is  any  where  assumed  by  them  as  the  basis  of  their  advices  or  directions ; 
no  binding  of  the  members  to  one  Church,  without  liberty  to  join  ano- 
ther, by  any  ties  but  those  involved  in  moral  considerations,  of  sufficient 
weight,  however,  to  prevent  the  evils  of  faction  and  scliism.  It  was  this 
which  created  a  natural  and  competent  check  upon  the  ministers  of  the 
Church  ;  for  being  only  sustained  by  the  opinion  of  the  Churches,  they 
could  not  but  have  respect  to  it ;  and  it  was  this  which  gave  to  the  sound 
part  of  a  fallen  Church  the  advantage  of  renouncing,  upon  sufficient  and 
well-weighed  grounds,  their  communion  with  it,  and  of  kindling  up  the 
light  of  a  pure  ministry  and  a  holy  discipline,  by  forming  a  separate  asso- 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  58& 

ciation,  bearing  its  testimony  against  errors  in  doctrine,  and  failures  in 
practice.  Nor  is  it  to  be  conceived,  that,  had  this  simple  principle  of 
perfect  religious  liberty  been  left  unviolated  through  subsequent  ages, 
the  Church  could  ever  have  become  so  corrupt,  or  with  such  difficulty 
and  slowness  have  been  recovered  from  its  fall.  This  ancient  Christian 
liberty  has  happily  been  restored  in  a  few  parts  of  Christendom. 

3.  In  places  where  now  the  communion  with  particular  Churches,  as 
to  human  authority,  is  perfectly  voluntary,  and  liberty  of  conscience  is 
unfettered,  it  often  happens  that  questions  of  Church  government  are 
argued  on  the  assumption  that  the  governing  power  in  such  Churches 
is  of  the  same  character,  and  tends  to  the  same  results,  as  where  it 
is  connected  with  civil  influence,  and  is  upheld  by  the  power  of  the 
state. 

Nothing  can  be  more  fallacious,  and  no  instrument  has  been  so  power- 
ful  as  this  in  the  hands  of  the  restless  and  factious,  to  delude  the  unwary. 
Those  who  possess  the  governing  power  in  such  Churches,  are  always 
under  the  influence  of  public  opinion  to  an  extent  unfelt  in  estabhshments. 
They  can  enforce  nothing  felt  to  be  oppressive  to  the  members  in  general 
without  dissolving  the  society  itself;  and  their  utmost  power  extends 
to  excision  from  the  body,  which,  unlike  the  sentences  of  excommunica- 
tion in  state  Churches,  is  wholly  unconnected  with  civil  penalties.  If, 
then,  a  resistance  is  created  to  any  regulations  among  the  major  part 
of  any  such  religious  community,  founded  on  a  sense  of  their  injurious 
operation,  or  to  the  manner  of  their  enforcement ;  and  if  that  feeling  be 
the  result  of  a  settled  conviction,  and  not  the  effervescence  of  temporary 
mistake  and  excitement,  a  change  must  necessarily  ensue,  or  the 
body  at  large  be  disturbed  or  dissolved  :  if,  on  the  other  hand,  this  feel- 
ing be  the  work  of  a  mere  faction,  partial  tumults  or  separation  may  take 
place,  and  great  moral  evil  may  result  to  the  factious  parties,  but  the 
body  will  retain  its  communion,  which  will  be  a  sufficient  proof  that 
the  governing  power  has  been  the  subject  of  ungrounded  and  unchari- 
table attack,  since  otherwise  the  people  at  large  must  have  felt  the  evils 
of  the  general  regulations  or  administration  complained  of.  The  very 
terms  often  used  in  the  grand  controversy  arising  out  of  the  struggle  for 
the  etabUshment  of  rehgious  liberty  with  national  and  intolerant  Churches, 
are  not  generally  appropriate  to  such  discussions  as  may  arise  in  volun- 
tary reUgious  societies,  although  they  are  often  employed,  either  care= 
lessly  or  ad  captandum,  to  serve  the  purposes  of  faction. 

4.  It  is  also  an  important  general  observation,  that,  in  settling  the 
government  of  a  Church,  there  are  pre-existent  laws  of  Christ,  which 
it  is  not  in  the  option  of  any  to  receive  or  to  reject.  Under  whatever 
form  the  governing  power  is  arranged,  it  is  so  bound  to  execute  all  the 
rules  left  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as  to  doctrine,  worship,  the  sacra- 
ments,  and  discipline,  honestly  interpreted,  that  it  is  not  at  liberty  to 


590  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

take  that  office,  or  to  continue  to  exercise  it,  if  by  any  restrictions 
imposed  upon  it,  it  is  prevented  from  carrying  these  laws  into  effect. 
As  in  the  state,  so  in  the  Church,  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God ; 
and  as  it  is  imperative  upon  rulers  in  the  state  to  be  "  a  terror  to  evil 
doers,  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well,"  so  also  is  it  imperative  upon 
the  rulers  of  the  Church  to  banish  strange  doctrines,  to  uphold  God's 
ordinances,  to  reprove  and  rebuke,  and,  finally,  to  put  away  evil  doers. 
The  spirit  in  which  this  is  to  be  done  is  also  prescribed.  It  is  to  be 
done  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  and  with  long  suffering ;  but  the  work 
must  be  done  upon  the  responsibility  of  the  pastors  to  Him  who  has 
commissioned  them  for  this  purpose  ;  and  they  have  a  right  to  require 
from  the  people,  that  in  this  office  and  ministry  they  should  not  only 
not  be  obstructed,  but  affectionately  and  zealously  aided,  as  ministering 
in  these  duties,  sometimes  painful,  not  for  themselves,  but  for  the  good 
of  the  whole.  With  respect  to  the  members  of  a  Church,  the  same 
remark  is  applicable  as  to  the  members  of  a  state.  It  is  not  matter  of 
option  with  them  whether  they  will  be  under  government  according  to 
the  laws  of  Christ  or  not,  for  that  is  imperative ;  government  in  both 
cases  being  of  Divine  appointment.  They  have,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
right  to  full  security,  that  they  shall  be  governed  by  the  laws  of  Christ ; 
and  they  have  a  right  too  to  establish  as  many  guards  against  human 
infirmity  and  passion  in  those  who  are  "  set  over  them,"  as  may  be  pru- 
dently devised,  provided  these  are  not  carried  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be 
obstructive  to  the  legitimate  Scriptural  discharge  of  their  duties.  The  true 
view  of  the  case  appears  to  be,  that  the  government  of  the  Church  is  in 
its  pastors,  open  to  various  modifications  as  to  form ;  and  that  it  is  to  be 
conducted  with  such  a  concurrence  of  the  people,  as  shall  constitute  a 
sufficient  guard  against  abuse,  and  yet  not  prevent  the  legitimate  and 
efficient  exercise  of  pastoral  duties,  as  these  duties  are  stated  in  the 
Scriptures.  This  original  authority  in  the  pastors,  and  concurrent  con- 
sent in  the  people,  may  be  thus  appUed  to  particular  cases : — 

1.  As  to  the  ordination  of  ministers.  If  we  consult  the  New  Testa- 
ment, this  office  was  never  conveyed  by  the  people.  The  apostles  were 
ordained  by  our  Lord ;  the  evangelists,  by  the  apostles ;  the  elders  in 
every  Church,  both  by  apostles  and  evangelists.  The  passage  which 
has  been  chiefly  urged  by  those  who  would  originate  the  ministry  from 
the  people,  is  Acts  xiv,  23,  where  the  historian,  speaking  of  St.  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  says,  "  And  when  they  had  ordained  {-x^sipoTovricfavTSg) 
elders  in  every  Church,  and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they  commended 
them  to  the  Lord."  Here,  because  y^sipoTovstv  originally  signified  to 
choose  by  way  of  suffrage,  some  have  argued  that  these  elders  were 
appointed  by  the  suffrages  of  the  people.  Long,  however,  before  the 
time  of  St.  Luke,  this  word  was  used  for  simple  designation,  without  any 
reference  to  election  by  suffrages ;  and  so  it  is  employed  by  St.  Luke 
2 


I 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  591 

himself  in  the  same  book,  Acts  x,  41,  ^^  Witnesses  foreappointed  of 
God,"  where  of  course  the  suffrages  of  men  are  out  of  the  question.  It 
is  also  fatal  to  the  argument  drawn  from  the  text,  that  the  act  implied 
in  the  word,  whatever  it  might  be,  was  not  the  act  of  the  people,  but  that 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Even  the  deacons,  whose  appointment  is 
mentioned  Acts  vi,  although  "looked  out"  by  the  disciples  as  men  of 
honest  report,  did  not  enter  upon  their  office  till  solemnly  "  appointed" 
thereto  by  the  apostles.  Nothmg  is  clearer  in  the  New  Testament, 
than  that  all  the  candidates  for  the  ministry  were  judged  of  by  those 
who  had  been  placed  in  that  office  themselves,  and  received  their  ap- 
pointment  from  them.  Such  too  was  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Churches  after  the  death  of  both  ai)ostles  and  evangelists.  Presbyters, 
who  during  the  hfe  of  the  apostles  had  the  power  of  ordination,  (for  they 
laid  their  hands  upon  Timothy,)  continued  to  perform  that  office  in  dis- 
charge of  one  solemn  part  of  their  duty,  to  perpetuate  the  ministry,  and 
to  provide  for  the  wants  of  the  Churches.  In  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
who  were  endued  with  special  gifts,  the  concurrence  of  the  people  was 
not,  perhaps,  always  formally  taken ;  but  the  directions  to  Timothy  and 
Titus  imply  a  reference  to  the  judgment  of  the  members  of  the  Church, 
because  from  them  only  it  could  be  learned  whether  the  party  fixed  upon 
for  ordination  possessed  those  qualifications  without  which  ordination 
was  prohibited.  When  the  Churches  assumed  a  more  regular  form, 
"  the  people  were  always  present  at  ordinations,  and  ratified  the  action 
with  their  approbation  and  consent.  To  this  end  the  bishop  was  wont 
before  every  ordination  to  pubhsh  the  names  of  those  who  were  to  have 
holy  orders  conferred  upon  them,  that  so  the  people,  who  best  knew 
their  lives  and  conversation,  might  interpose  if  they  had  any  thing  mate- 
rial to  object  against  them."  {Cavers  Primitive  Christianity.)  Some- 
times also  they  nominated  them  by  suffrages,  and  thus  proposed  them 
for  ordination.  The  mode  in  which  the  people  shall  be  made  a  concur- 
rent party  is  matter  of  prudential  regulation ;  but  they  had  an  early,  and 
certainly  a  reasonable  right  to  a  voice  in  the  appointment  of  their 
ministers,  although  the  power  of  ordination  was  vested  in  ministers 
alone,  to  be  exercised  on  their  responsibility  to  Christ. 

2.  As  to  the  laws  by  which  the  Church  is  to  be  governed.  So  far 
as  they  are  manifestly  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God,  and  not  regulations 
judged  to  be  subsidiary  thereto,  it  is  plain  that  the  rulers  of  a  Church 
are  bound  to  execute  them,  and  the  people  to  obey  them.  They  cannot 
be  matter  of  compact  on  either  side,  except  as  the  subject  of  a  mutual 
and  solemn  engagement  to  defer  to  them  without  any  modification  or 
appeal  to  any  other  standard. 

Every  Church  declares  in  some  way,  how  it  understands  the  doctrine 
and  the  disciplinary  laws  of  Christ.  This  declaration  as  to  doctrine,  in 
modern  times,  is  made  by  confessions  or  articles  of  faith,  in  which,  if 

2 


592  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

fundamental  error  is  found,  the  evil  rests  upon  the  head  of  that  Church 
collectively,  and  upon  the  members  individually,  every  one  of  whom  is 
bound  to  try  all  doctrines  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  cannot  support  an 
acknowledged  system  of  error  without  guilt.  As  to  disciphne,  the  man- 
ner  in  which  a  Church  provides  for  public  worship,  the  publication  of 
the  Gospel,  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  the  instruction  of  the 
ignorant,  the  succour  of  the  distressed,  the  admonition  of  the  disorderly, 
and  the  excision  of  offenders,  (which  are  all  points  on  which  the  New 
Testament  has  issued  express  injunctions,)  is  its  declaration  of  the 
manner  in  which  it  interprets  those  injunctions,  which  also  it  does  on  its 
own  collective  responsibility,  and  that  of  its  members.  If,  however,  we 
take  for  illustration  of  the  subject  before  us,  a  Church,  at  least  substan- 
tially right  in  this  its  interpretation  of  doctrine,  and  of  the  laws  of  Christ 
as  to  general,  and  what  we  may  call,  for  distinction's  sake,  moral  dis- 
cipline ;  these  are  the  first  principles  upon  which  this  Church  is  founded. 
It  is  either  an  apostolic  Church,  which  has  retained  primitive  faith  and 
discipline  ;  or  it  has  subsequently  been  collected  into  a  new  communion, 
on  account  of  the  fall  of  other  Churches ;  and  has  placed  itself,  accord- 
ing  to  its  own  conviction,  upon  the  basis  of  primitive  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline as  found  in  the  Scriptures.  On  this  gi'ound  either  the  pastors 
and  people  met  and  united  at  first ;  or  the  people,  converted  to  faith  and 
holiness  by  the  labours  of  one  or  more  pastors,  holding,  as  they  believed, 
these  Scriptural  views,  placed  themselves  under  the  guidance  of  these 
pastors,  and  thus  formed  themselves  into  a  Church  state,  which  was 
their  act  of  accession  to  these  principles.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  by 
this  very  act,  they  bind  themselves  to  comply  with  the  original  terms 
of  the  communion  into  which  they  have  entered,  and  that  they  have  as 
to  these  doctrines,  and  as  to  these  disciplinary  laws  of  Christ,  which 
are  to  be  preached  and  enforced,  no  rights  of  control  over  ministers, 
which  shall  prevent  the  just  exercise  of  their  office  in  these  respects. 
They  have  a  right  to  such  regulations  and  checks  as  shall  secure,  in 
the  best  possible  way,  the  just  and  faithful  exercise  of  that  office,  and 
the  honest  and  impartial  use  of  that  power ;  but  this  is  the  limit  of  their 
right ;  and  every  system  of  suffrages,  or  popular  concurrence,  which, 
under  pretence  of  guarding  against  abuse  of  ministerial  authority,  makes 
its  exercise  absolutely  and  in  all  cases  dependent  upon  the  consent  of 
those  over  whom  it  extends,  goes  beyond  that  limit,  and  invades  the 
right  of  pastoral  government,  which  the  New  Testament  has  established. 
It  brings,  in  a  word,  the  laws  of  Christ  into  debate,  which  yet  the  mem- 
bers profess  to  have  received  as  their  rule ;  and  it  claims  to  put  into 
commission  those  duties  which  pastors  are  charged  by  Christ  personally 
to  exercise.  The  Apostle  Paul,  had  the  incestuous  person  at  Corinth 
denied  the  crime,  and  there  had  been  £my  doubtfulness  as  to  the  fact, 
■would  unquestionably  have  taken  the  opinion  of  the  elders  of  that  Church 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  593 

and  others  upon  that  fact ;  but  when  it  became  a  question  whether  the 
laws  of  Christ's  discipline  should  be  exercised  or  not,  he  did  not  feel 
himself  concluded  by  the  sense  of  the  whole  Corinthian  Church,  which 
was  in  favour  of  the  offender  continuing  in  communion  with  them ;  but 
he  instantly  reproved  them  for  their  laxity,  and  issued  the  sentence  of 
excision)  thereby  showing  that  an  obvious  law  of  Christ  was  not  to  be 
subjected  to  the  decision  of  a  majority. 

This  view  indeed  supposes,  that  such  a  society,  like  almost  all  the 
Churches  ever  known,  has  admitted  in  the  first  instance,  that  the  power 
of  admission  into  the  Church,  of  reproof,  of  exhortation,  and  of  excision 
from  it,  subject  to  various  guards  against  abuses,  is  in  the  pastors  of  a 
Church.  There  are  some  who  have  adopted  a  different  opinion,  sup- 
posing that  the  power  of  administering  the  discipline  of  Christ  must  be 
conveyed  by  them  to  their  ministers,  and  is  to  be  wholly  controlled  by 
their  suffrages ;  so  that  there  is  in  these  systems,  not  a  provision  of 
counsel  against  possible  errors  in  the  exercise  of  authority  ;  not  a  guard 
against  human  infirmity  or  viciousness ;  not  a  reservation  of  right  to 
determine  upon  the  fitness  of  the  cases  to  which  the  laws  of  Christ  are 
applied ;  but  a  claim  of  co-administration  as  to  thesfe  laws  themselves, 
or  rather  an  entire  administration  of  them  through  the  pastor,  as  a 
passive  agent  of  their  will.  Those  who  adopt  these  views  are  bound  to 
show  that  this  is  the  state  of  things  established  in  the  New  Testament. 
That  it  is  not,  appears  plain  from  the  very  term  "pastors,"  which 
imports  both  care  and  government ;  mild  and  aflfectionate  government 
indeed,  but  still  government.  Hence  the  office  of  shepherd  is  applied 
to  describe  the  government  of  God,  and  the  government  of  kings.  It 
appears  too,  from  other  titles  given,  not  merely  to  apostles,  but  to  the 
presbyters  they  ordained  and  placed  over  the  Churches.  They  are 
called  Ti^oufASvoj,  rulers  ;  iifidxaitai,  overseers  ;  •syposo'Twrs^,  those  who  pre- 
side. They  are  commended  for  "  ruling  well ;"  and  they  are  directed 
"  to  charge,"  "  to  reprove,"  "  to  rebuke,"  «  to  watch,"  *'  to  silence,"  "  to 
put  away."  The  very  "  account"  they  must  give  to  God,  in  connection 
with  the  discharge  of  these  duties,  shows  that  their  oflice  and  responsi- 
biUty  was  peculiar  and  personal,  and  much  greater  than  that  of  any 
private  member  of  the  Church,  which  it  could  not  be  if  they  were  the 
passive  agents  only  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  will  of 
the  whole.  To  the  double  duty  oi feeding  and  exercising  the  oversight 
of  the  flock,  a  special  reward  is  also  promised  when  the  "  Chief  Shep- 
herd shall  appear," — a  title  of  Christ,  which  shows  that  as  the  pastoral 
office  of  feeding  and  ruling  is  exercised  by  Christ  supremely,  so  it  is 
exercised  by  his  ministers  in  both  branches  subordinately.  Finally,  the 
exhortations  to  Christians  to  "  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  them," 
and  to  "  submit"  to  them,  and  "  to  esteem  them  very  highly  for  their 
works'  sake,"  and  to  «  remember  them ;" — all  show  that  the  ministerial 

Vol.  II.  38 


594  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

office  is  not  one  of  mere  agency,  under  the  absolute  direction  of  the  votes 
of  the  collected  Church. 

3.  With  respect  to  other  disciplinary  regulations,  supposed  by  any 
religious  society  to  be  subsidiary  to  the  great  and  Scriptural  ends  of 
Church  communion,  these  appear  to  be  matters  of  mutual  agreement, 
and  are  capable  of  modification  by  the  mutual  consent  of  ministers  and 
people,  under  their  common  responsibility  to  Christ,  that  they  are  done 
advisedly,  with  prayer,  with  reference  to  the  edification  of  the  Church, 
and  so  as  not  to  infringe  upon,  but  to  promote,  the  influence  of  the  doc- 
trines, duties,  and  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  The  consent  of  the  people  to  all 
such  regulations,  either  tacitly  by  their  adoption  of  them,  or  more  ex- 
pressly through  any  regular  meetings  of  different  officers,  who  may  be 
regarded  as  acquainted  with,  and  representing  the  sentiments  of  the 
whole  ;  as  also  by  the  approval  of  those  aged,  wise,  and  from  different 
causes,  influential  persons,  who  are  to  be  found  in  all  societies,  and  who 
are  always,  whether  in  office  or  not,  their  natural  guardians,  guides,  and 
representatives,  is  necessary  to  confidence  and  harmony,  and  a  proper 
security  for  good  and  orderly  government.  It  is  thus  that  those  to 
whom  the  government  or  well  ordering  of  the  Church  is  committed, 
and  those  upon  whom  their  influence  and  Scriptural  authority  exert 
themselves,  appear  to  be  best  brought  into  a  state  of  harmony  and  mu- 
tual confidence ;  and  that  abundant  security  is  afforded  against  all  mis- 
rule, seeing  that  in  a  voluntary  communion,  and  where  perfect  liberty 
exists  for  any  member  to  unite  himself  to  other  Churches,  or  for  any 
number  of  them  to  arrange  themselves  into  a  new  community,  subject 
however  to  the  moral  cautions  of  the  New  Testament  against  the  schis- 
matic spirit,  it  can  never  be  the  interest  of  those  with  whom  the  regula- 
tion of  the  affairs  of  a  Church  is  lodged,  voluntarily  to  adopt  measures 
which  can  be  generally  felt  to  be  onerous  and  injurious,  nor  is  it  prac- 
ticable to  persevere  in  them.  In  this  method  of  bringing  in  the  con- 
currence  of  the  people,  all  assemblages  of  whole  societies,  or  very 
large  portions  of  them,  are  avoided, — a  popular  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment, which,  however  it  were  modified  so  as  best  to  accord  with  the 
Scriptural  authority  of  ministers,  could  only  be  tolerable  in  very  small 
isolated  societies,  and  that  in  the  times  of  their  greatest  simplicity  and 
love.  To  raise  into  legislators  and  censors  all  the  members  of  a  Church, 
the  young,  the  ignorant,  and  the  inexperienced,  is  to  do  them  great  injury. 
It  is  the  sure  way  to  foster  debates,  contentions,  and  self  confidence,  to 
open  the  door  to  intrigue  and  policy,  to  tempt  forward  and  conceited 
men  to  become  a  kind  of  rehgious  demagogues,  and  entirely  to  destroy 
the  salutary  influence  of  the  aged,  experienced,  and  gifted  members,  by 
referring  every  decision  to  members  and  suflTrages,  and  placing  all  that 
is  good  and  venerable,  and  influential  among  the  members  themselves, 
at  the  feet  of  a  democracy. 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  595 

4.  As  to  the  power  of  admission  into  the  Church,  that  is  clearly  with 
ministers,  to  whom  the  office  of  baptism  is  committed,  by  which  the  door 
is  opened  into  the  Church  universal ;  and  as  there  can  be  no  visible 
communion  kept  up  with  the  universal  Church,  except  by  communion 
with  some  particular  Church,  the  admission  into  that  particular  com- 
munion  must  be  in  the  hands  of  ministers,  because  it  is  one  of  the  duties 
of  their  office,  made  such  by  thp  Scripture  itself,  to  enjoin  this  mode  of 
confessing  Christ,  by  assembling  with  his  saints  in  worship,  by  submitting 
to  discipline,  and  by  "  showing  forth  his  death"  at  the  Lord's  Supper. 
We  have,  however,  already  said,  that  the  members  of  a  Church,  al- 
though they  have  no  right  to  obstruct  the  just  exercise  of  this  power, 
have  the  right  to  prevent  its  being  unworthily  exercised  ;  and  their  con- 
currence  with  the  admission,  tacit  or  declared,  according  to  their  usages, 
is  an  arrangement,  supported  by  analogies,  drawn  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  from  primitive  antiquity.  Tlie  expulsion  of  unworthy  mem- 
bers, after  admonition,  devolves  upon  those  to  whom  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments,  the  signs  of  communion,  is  entrusted,  and  therefore 
upon  ministers,  for  this  reason,  that  as  "  shepherds"  of  the  flock  under 
the  "  Chief  Shepherd,"  they  are  charged  to  carry  his  laws  into  effect. 
These  laws,  it  is  neither  with  them  nor  with  the  people  to  modify ;  they 
are  already  declared  by  superior  authority ;  but  the  determination  of  the 
facts  of  the  case  to  which  they  are  to  be  applied,  is  matter  of  mutual 
investigation  and  decision,  in  order  to  prevent  an  erring  or  an  improper 
exercise  of  authority.  That  such  investigations  should  take  place,  not 
before  the  assembled  members  of  a  society,  but  before  proper  and  select 
tribunals,  appears  not  only  an  obviously  proper,  but,  in  many  respects, 
a  necessary  regulation. 

The  trial  of  unworthy  ministers  remains  to  be  noticed,  which,  where- 
ever  a  number  of  rehgious  societies  exist  as  one  Church,  having  there- 
fore many  pastors,  is  manifestly  most  safely  placed  in  the  hands  of  those 
pastors  themselves,  and  that  not  only  because  the  official  acts  of  censure 
and  exclusion  lie  with  them,  but  for  other  reasons  also.  It  can  scarcely 
happen  that  a  minister  should  be  under  accusation,  except  in  some  very 
particular  cases,  but  that,  from  his  former  influence,  at  least  with  a  part 
of  the  people,  some  faction  would  be  found  to  support  him.  In  propor- 
tion to  the  ardour  of  this  feeling,  the  other  party  would  be  excited  to 
undue  severity  and  bitterness.  To  try  such  a  case  before  a  whole 
society,  there  would  not  only  be  the  same  objection  as  in  the  case  of 
private  members  ;  but  the  additional  one,  that  parties  would  be  more  cer- 
tainly formed,  and  be  still  more  violent.  If  he  must  be  arraigned  then 
before  some  special  tribunal,  the  most  fitting  is  that  of  his  brethren,  pro- 
vided that  the  parties  accusing  have  the  right  to  bring  on  such  a  trial 
upon  exhibition  of  probable  evidence,  and  to  prosecute  it  without  ob- 
struction.     In  Churches  whose  ministers  are  thrown  solely  upon  the 

2 


596  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES^  [PART 

public  opinion  of  the  society,  and  exist  as  such  only  by  their  character, 
this  is  ordinarily  a  sufficient  guard  against  the  toleration  of  improper 
conduct ;  while  it  removes  the  trial  from  those  whose  excitement  for  or 
against  the  accused  might  on  either  side  be  unfavourable  to  fair  and 
equitable  decision,  and  to  the  peace  of  the  Church. 

The  above  remarks  contain  but  a  sketch  of  those  principles  of  Church 
government  which  appear  to  be  contained  in,  or  to  be  suggested  by,  the 
New  Testament.  They  still  leave  much  liberty  to  Christians  to  adapt 
them  in  detail  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they  are  placed.  The 
offices  to  be  created ;  the  meetings  necessary  for  the  management  of 
the  various  affairs  of  the  Church,  spiritual  and  financial ;  the  assembling 
of  ministers  in  larger  or  smaller  numbers  for  counsel,  and  for  oversight 
of  each  other,  and  of  the  Churches  to  which  they  belong,  are  all  mat- 
ters of  this  kind,  and  are  left  to  the  suggestions  of  wisdom  and  piety. 
The  extent  to  which  distinct  societies  of  Christians  shall  associate  in 
one  Church,  under  a  common  government,  appears  also  to  be  a  matter 
of  prudence  and  of  circumstances.  In  the  primitive  Church  we  see 
different  societies  in  a  city  and  its  neighbourhood  under  the  common 
government  of  the  assembly  of  presbyters ;  and  afterward  these  grew 
into  provincial  Churches,  of  greater  or  smaller  extent.  In  modern  times, 
we  have  similar  associations  in  the  form  of  national  Churches,  Episcopal 
or  Presbyterian  ;  and  of  Churches  existing  without  any  recognition  of 
the  state  at  all,  and  forming  smaller  or  larger  communities,  from  the 
union  of  a  few  societies,  to  the  union  of  societies  throughout  a  whole 
country;  holding  the  same  doctrines,  practising  the  same  modes  of 
worship,  and  placing  themselves  under  a  common  code  of  laws  and  a 
common  government.  But  whatever  be  the  form  they  take,  they  are 
bound  to  respect,  aiid  to  model  themselves  by,  the  principles  of  Church 
communion  and  of  Church  discipline  which  are  contained  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  they  will  be  fruitful  in  holiness  and  usefulness,  so  long 
as  they  conform  to  them,  and  so  long  as  those  forms  of  administration 
are  conscientiously  preferred  which  appear  best  adapted  to  preserve  and 
to  diffuse  sound  doctrine,  Christian  practice,  spirituality,  and  charity. 
That  discipline  is  defective  and  bad  in  itself,  or  it  is  ill  administered, 
which  does  not  accompUsh  these  ends ;  and  that  is  best  which  best  pro- 
motes them. 

The  ENDS  to  which  Church  authority  is  legitimately  directed  remain 
to  be  briefly  considered. 

The  first  is,  the  preservation  and  the  publication  of  "  sound  doctritie" 
Against  false  doctrines,  and  the  men  "  of  corrupt  minds"  who  taught 
them,  the  sermons  of  Christ,  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  abound  in 
cautions ;  and  since  St.  Paul  lays  it  down  as  a  rule,  as  to  erring  teach- 
ers, that  their  "  mouths  must  be  stopped,"  this  implies,  that  the  power  of 
declaring  what  sound  doctrine  is,  and  of  silencing  false  teachers,  was 


FOURTH.  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  597 

confided  by  the  apostles  to  the  future  Church.  By  systematic  writers 
this  has  been  called  potestas  Soyixanxf] ;  which,  abused  by  the  ambition 
of  man,  forms  no  small  part  of  that  antichristian  usurpation  which  cha- 
racterizes the  Church  of  Rome.  Extravagant  as  are  her  claims,  so  that 
she  brings  in  her  traditions  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  inspired  writ- 
ings, and  denies  to  men  the  right  of  private  judgment,  and  of  trying  her 
dogmas  by  the  test  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  there  is  a  sober  sense  in 
which  this  power  may  be  taken.  The  great  Protestant  principle,  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  standard  of  doctrine  ;  that  the  doctrines 
of  every  Church  must  be  proved  out  of  them ;  and  that  to  this  standard 
every  individual  member  has  the  right  of  bringing  them,  in  order  to  the 
confirmation  of  his  own  faith,  must  be  held  inviolate,  if  we  would  not 
see  Divine  authority  displaced  by  human.  Since,  however,  men  may 
come  to  different  conclusions  upon  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  it  has  been 
the  practice  from  primitive  times  to  declare  the  sense  in  which  Scrip- 
ture is  understood  by  collective  assemblies  of  ministers,  and  by  the 
Churches  united  with  them,  in  order  to  the  enforcement  of  such  inter- 
pretations upon  Christians  generally,  by  the  influence  of  learning, 
piety,  numbers,  and  solemn  deliberation.  The  reference  of  the  question 
respecting  circumcision  by  the  Church  at  Antioch  to  "  the  apostles  and 
elders  at  Jerusalem,"  is  the  first  instance  of  this,  though  with  this  pecu- 
liarity, that,  in  this  case,  the  decision  was  given  under  plenary  inspira-^ 
tion.  While  one  of  the  apostles  lived,  an  appeal  could  be  made  to  him 
in  like  manner  when  any  doctrinal  novelty  sprung  up  in  the  Church. 
After  their  death,  smaller  or  larger  councils,  composed  of  the  public 
teachers  of  the  Churches,  were  resorted  to,  that  they  might  pronounce 
upon  these  differences  of  opinion,  and  by  their  authority  confirm  the 
faithful,  and  abash  the  propagators  of  error.  Still  later,  four  councils, 
called  general,  from  the  number  of  persons  assembled  in  them  from 
various  parts  of  Christendom,  have  peculiar  eminence.  The  council 
of  Nice,  in  the  fourth  century,  which  condemned  the  Arian  heresy,  and 
formed  that  Scriptural  and  important  formulary  called  the  Nicene  Creed ; 
the  council  of  Constantinople,  held  at  the  end  of  the  same  century,  which 
condemned  the  errors  of  Macedonius,  and  asserted  the  Divinity  and  per- 
sonahty  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  the  councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalce- 
don,  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  which  censured  the  opinions 
of  Nestorius  and  Eutyches.  At  Nice  it  was  declared  that  the  Son  is 
truly  God,  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father ;  at  Constantinople, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  also  truly  God ;  at  Ephesus,  that  the  Divine 
nature  was  truly  united  to  the  human  in  Christ,  in  one  person ;  at  Chal- 
cedon,  that  both  natures  remained  distinct,  and  that  the  human  nature 
was  not  lost  or  absorbed  in  the  Divine.  The  decisions  of  these  councils, 
both  from  their  antiquity  and  from  the  manifest  conformity  of  their  deci- 
sions on  these  points  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  have  been  received  to  this 

2 


598  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

day  in  what  have  been  called  the  orthodox  Churches,  throughout  the 
world.  On  general  councils,  the  Romish  Church  has  been  divided  as 
to  the  questions,  whether  infallibility  resides  in  them,  or  in  the  pope,  or 
in  the  pope  when  at  their  head.  Protestants  cut  this  matter  short  by 
acknowledging  that  they  have  erred,  and  may  err,  being  composed  of 
fallible  men,  and  that  they  have  no  authority  but  as  they  manifestly  agree 
with  the  Scriptures.  To  the  above-mentioned  councils  they  have  in  gene- 
ral always  paid  great  deference,  as  affording  confirmation  of  the  plain 
and  literal  sense  of  Scripture  on  the  points  in  question ;  but  on  no  other 
ground.  "  Things  ordained  by  general  councils  as  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, have  neither  strength  nor  authority,  unless  it  may  be  declared  they 
be  taken  out  of  Holy  Scripture."  {Twenty -first  Article  of  the  Church 
of  England,)  The  manner  in  which  the  respective  Churches  of  the 
reformation  declared  their  doctrinal  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  on 
the  leading  points  of  theology,  was  by  confessions  and  articles  of  faith, 
and  by  the  adoption  of  ancient  or  primitive  creeds.  With  reference  to 
this  practice,  no  doubt  it  is,  that  the  Church  of  England  declares  in  her 
twentieth  article,  that  "  the  Church  hath  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith  ;"  but  qualifies  the  tenet  by  adding,  "  and  yet  it  is  not  lawful  for 
the  Church  to  ordain  any  thing  that  is  contrary  to  God's  word  written  ;'* 
in  which  there  is  a  manifest  recognition  of  the  right  of  all  who  have 
God's  word  in  their  hands,  to  make  use  of  it  in  order  to  try  what  any 
Church  ''  ordains,"  as  necessary  to  be  believed.  This  authority  of  a 
Church  in  matters  of  doctrine  appears  then  to  be  reduced  to  the  follow- 
ing particulars,  which,  although  directly  opposed  to  the  assumptions  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  are  of  great  importance  : — 1.  To  declare  the  sense 
in  which  it  interprets  the  language  of  Scripture  on  all  the  leading  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  revelation ;  for  to  contend,  as  some  have  done, 
that  no  creeds  or  articles  of  faith  are  proper,  but  that  belief  in  the  Scrip- 
tures only  ought  to  be  required,  would  be  to  destroy  all  doctrinal  dis- 
tinctions, since  the  most  perverse  interpreters  of  Scripture  profess  to 
believe  the  words  of  Scripture.  2.  To  require  from  all  its  members, 
with  whom  the  right  of  private  judgment  is  by  all  Protestant  Churches 
left  inviolate,  to  examine  such  declarations  of  faith,  professing  to  convey 
the  sense  of  Scripture  with  modesty  and  proper  respect  to  those  grave 
and  learned  assemblies  in  which  all  these  points  have  been  weighed  with 
deliberation  ;  receiving  them  as  guides  to  truth,  not  implicitly,  it  is  true, 
but  still  with  docility  and  humility.  "  Great  weight  and  deference  is 
due  to  such  decisions,  and  every  man  that  finds  his  own  thoughts  differ 
from  them,  ought  to  examine  the  matter  over  again  with  much  attention 
and  care,  freeing  himself  all  he  can  from  prejudice  and  obstinacy,  with 
a  just  distrust  of  his  own  understanding,  and  an  humble  respect  to  the 
judgment  of  his  superiors.  This  is  due  to  the  consideration  of  peace 
and  union,  and  to  that  authority  which  the  Church  has  to  maintain  it ; 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  509 

but  if,  after  all  possible  methods  of  inquir)^  a  man  cannot  master  his 
thoughts,  or  make  them  agree  with  the  public  decisions,  his  conscience 
is  not  under  bonds,  since  this  authority  is  not  absolute,  nor  grounded 
upon  a  promise  of  infallibility."  (Burnet.)  3.  To  silence  within  its  own 
pale  the  preaching  of  all  doctrines  contrary  to  the  received  standards. 
On  this  every  Church  has  a  right  to  insist  which  sincerely  believes  that 
contrary  doctrines  to  its  own  are  fundamental  or  dangerous  errors,  and 
which  is  thereby  bound  both  to  keep  its  members  from  their  contamina- 
tion, and  also  to  preserve  them  from  those  distractions  and  controver- 
sies to  which  the  preaching  of  diverse  doctrines  by  its  ministers  would 
inevitably  lead.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  exercise  of  this  authority 
contrary  to  Christian  liberty,  since  the  members  of  any  communion,  and 
especially  the  ministers,  know  beforehand  the  terms  of  fellowship  with 
the  Churches  whose  confessions  of  faith  are  thus  made  public ;  and  be- 
cause also,  where  conscience  is  unfettered  by  public  law,  they  are  nei- 
ther prevented  from  enjoying  their  own  opinions  in  peace,  nor  from 
propagating  them  in  other  assemblies. 

The  second  end  is,  the  forming  of  such  regulations  for  the  conduct 
of  its  ministers,  officers,  and  members,  as  shall  establish  a  common  or- 
der for  worship ;  facihtate  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  the  com- 
munity, spiritual,  economical,  and  financial ;  and  give  a  right  direction 
to  the  general  conduct  of  the  whole  society.  This  in  technical  language 
is  called  potestas  ^laraxTixyj,  and  consists  in  making  canons,  or  rules,  for 
those  particular  matters  which  are  not  provided  for  in  detail  by  the 
directions  of  Scripture.  This  power  also,  like  the  former,  has  been 
carried  to  a  culpable  excess  in  nmny  Churches,  so  as  to  fill  them  with 
superstition,  and  in  many  respects  to  introduce  an  onerous  system  of 
observances,  like  that  of  Judaism,  the  yoke  from  which  the  Gospel  has 
set  us  free.  The  simplicity  of  Christianity  has  thus  been  oflen  destroy- 
ed, and  the  "  doctrines  of  men"  set  up  "  as  commandments  of  God." 
At  the  same  time,  there  is  a  sound  sense  in  which  this  power  in  a  Church 
must  be  admitted,  and  a  deference  to  it  bound  upon  the  members.  For, 
when  the  laws  of  Christ  are  both  rightly  understood  and  cordially  ad- 
mitted, the  application  of  them  to  particular  cases  is  still  necessary ; 
many  regulations  also  are  dictated  by  inference  and  by  analogies,  and 
often  appear  to  be  required  by  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  for  which  there 
is  no  provision  in  the  letter  of  Scripture.  The  obligation  of  public  wor- 
ship, for  instance,  is  plainly  stated ;  but  the  seasons  of  its  observance, 
its  frequency,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  is  to  be  conducted,  must  be  mat- 
ter of  special  regulation,  in  order  that  all  things  may  be  done  "  decently 
and  in  order."  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  binding ;  but  particular 
rules  guarding  against  such  acts,  as  in  the  judgment  of  a  Church  are  viola- 
tions of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  are  often  necessary  to  direct  the  judgment 
and  consciences  of  the  body  of  the  people.     Baptism  is  to  be  adminis- 

2 


QQQ  THEOI^OGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

tered  ;  but  tlie  manner  of  this  service  may  be  prescribed  by  a  Church, 
since  the  Scriptures  have  not  determined  it.  So  also  as  to  the  mode 
and  the  times  of  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  same  absence  of 
inspired  directions  regulations  must  be  agreed  upon,  that  there  may  be, 
as  nearly  as  edification  requires,  an  undistracted  uniformity  of  practice. 
Special  festivals  of  commemoration  and  thanksgivings  may  also  be  ap- 
pointed,  as  fit  occasions  for  the  inculcation  of  particular  truths,  and  moral 
duties,  and  for  the  special  excitement  of  grateful  affections.  For  although 
they  are  not  particularly  prescribed  in  Scripture,  they  are  in  manifest 
accordance  with  its  spirit,  and  are  sanctioned  by  many  of  the  examples 
which  it  exhibits.  Days  of  fasting  and  humiliation,  for  the  same  rea- 
sons, may  be  the  subject  of  appointment ;  and  beside  the  regular  acts 
of  public  worship,  private  meetings  of  the  members  for  mutual  prayer 
9,nd  religious  converse,  may  also  be  found  necessary.  To  these  may  be 
added,  various  plans  for  the  instruction  of  children,  the  visitation  and  relief 
of  the  sick,  and  the  introduction  of  the  Gospel  into  neglected  neighbour- 
hoods, and  its  promotion  in  foreign  lands.  A  considerable  number  of 
other  regulations  touching  order,  contributions,  the  repressing  of  par- 
ticular  vices  which  may  mark  the  spirit  of  the  times,  and  the  practice 
pf  particular  duties,  will  also  be  found  necessary. 

The  only  legitimate  ends,  however,  of  all  these  directions  and  rules, 
are,  the  edification  of  the  Church  ;  the  preservation  of  its  practical 
purity  ;  the  estabUshment  of  an  influential  order  and  decorum  in  its  ser- 
vices J  and  the  promotion  of  its  usefulness  to  the  world.  The  general 
principles  by  which  they  are  to  be  controlled,  are  the  spirituality,  sim- 
plicityf  and  practical  character  of  Christianity ;  and  the  authority  with 
which  they  are  invested,  is  derived  from  piety,  wisdom,  and  singleness 
of  heart,  in  those  who  originate  them,  and  from  that  docility  and  submis- 
siveness  of  Christians  to  each  other,  which  is  enforced  upon  them  in  the 
New  Testament.  For  although  every  Christian  is  exhorted  to  "  try  all 
things,"  to  *'  search  the  Scriptures,"  and  to  exercise  his  best  judgment, 
in  matters  which  relate  to  doctrine,  discipline,  and  practice,  yet  he  is  to 
do  this  in  the  spirit  of  a  Christian ;  not  with  self  willedness,  and  self 
confidence  ;  not  contemning  the  opinion  and  authority  of  others ;  not 
factiously  and  censoriously.  This  is  his  duty  even  where  the  most  im- 
portant subjects  are  in  question ;  how  much  more  then  in  things  com- 
paratively indifferent  ought  he  to  practise  the  apostolic  rule :  "  Likewise, 
ye  younger,  submit  yourselves  unto  the  elder  ;  yea,  all  of  you  be  subject 
one  to  another,  and  be  clothed  with  humility." 

The  third  end  of  Church  government  is  the  infliction  and  removal  of 
censures,  a  power  {potestas  SiaxptTixri)  the  abuse  of  which,  and  the  ex- 
travagant lengths  to  which  it  has  been  carried,  have  led  some  wholly  to 
deny  it,  or  to  treat  it  slightly  ;  but  which  is  nevertheless  deposited  with 
every  Scriptural  Church.  Even  associations  much  less  solemn  and 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  601 

spiritual  in  their  character,  have  the  power  to  put  away  their  members, 
and  to  receive  again,  upon  certain  conditions,  tliose  who  offend  against 
their  rules ;  and  if  the  olience  which  called  forth  this  expulsion  be  of  a 
moral  nature,  the  censure  of  a  whole  society,  inflicted  after  due  exami- 
nation, comes  with  much  greater  weight,  and  is  a  much  greater  re- 
proach and  misfortune  to  the  person  who  falls  under  it,  than  that  of  a 
private  individual.  In  the  case  of  a  Christian  Church,  however,  the 
proceeding  connects  itself  with  a  higher  than  human  authority.  The 
members  have  separated  from  the  world,  and  have  placed  themselves 
under  the  laws  of  Christ.  They  stand  in  a  special  relation  to  him,  so 
long  as  they  are  faithful ;  they  are  objects  of  his  care  and  love,  as  mem- 
bers of  his  own  body ;  and  to  them,  as  such,  great  and  numerous  pro- 
mises are  made.  To  preserve  them  in  this  state  of  fidelity,  to  guard 
them  from  errors  of  doctrine  and  viciousness  of  practice,  and  thus  to 
prevent  their  separation  from  Christ,  the  Church  with  its  ministry,  its 
ordinances,  and  its  discipline  was  established.  He  who  becomes  unfaith- 
ful in  opposition  to  the  influence  of  those  edifying  and  conservatory 
means,  forfeits  the  favour  of  Christ,  even  before  he  is  deservedly  sepa- 
rated from  the  Church  ;  but  when  he  is  separated,  put  away,  denied  com- 
munion with  the  Church,  he  loses  also  the  benefit  of  all  those  pecuUar 
means  of  grace  and  salvation,  and  of  those  special  influences  and  pro- 
mises which  Christ  bestows  upon  the  Church.  He  is  not  only  thrown 
back  upon  common  society  with  shame,  stigmatized  as  an  "  evil  worker," 
by  the  solemn  sentence  of  a  religious  tribunal ;  but  becomes,  so  to  speak, 
agam  a  member  of  that  incorporated  and  hostile  society,  the  world, 
against  which  the  exclusive  and  penal  sentences  of  the  word  of  God  are 
directed.  Where  the  sentence  of  excision  by  a  Church  is  erring  or 
vicious,  as  it  may  be  in  some  cases,  it  cannot  affect  an  innocent  indi- 
vidual ;  he  would  remain,  notwithstanding  the  sentence  of  men,  a  mem- 
ber of  Christ's  invisible  universal  Church  ;  but  when  it  proceeds  upon 
a  just  application  of  the  laws  of  Christ,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its 
ratification  in  heaven,  although  the  door  is  left  open  to  penitence  and 
restoration. 

In  proportion,  however,  as  a  sober  and  serious  Christian,  having  those 
views,  wishes  to  keep  up  in  his  own  mind,  and  in  the  minds  of  others,  a 
proper  sense  of  the  weight  and  solemnity  of  Church  censures  when  rightly 
administered,  he  will  feel  disgusted  at  those  assumptions  of  control  over 
the  mercy  and  justice  of  God,  which  fallible  men  have  in  some  Churches 
endeavoured  to  establish,  and  have  too  often  exercised  for  the  gratification 
of  the  worst  passions.  So  because  our  Lord  said  to  Peter,  "  I  will  give  unto 
thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  '•  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven,"  which  is  also  said  Matt,  xviii,  18, 
to  all  the  apostles,  "  it  came  to  be  understood  that  the  sentence  of  ex- 

2 


602  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

communication,  by  its  own  intrinsic  authority,  condemned  to  eternal 
punishment ;  that  the  excommunicated  person  could  not  be  delivered 
from  this  condemnation,  unless  the  Church  gave  him  absolution ;  and 
that  the  Church  had  the  power  of  absolving  him  upon  the  private  con- 
fession of  his  fault,  either  by  prescribing  to  him  certain  acts  of  penance, 
and  works  of  charity,  the  performance  of  which  was  considered  as  *a 
satisfaction  for  the  sin  which  he  had  committed,  or  by  applying  to  him 
the  merits  of  some  other  person.  And  as  in  the  progress  of  corruption, 
the  whole  power  of  the  Church  was  supposed  to  be  lodged  in  the  pope, 
there  flowed  from  him,  at  his  pleasure,  indulgences  or  remissions  of 
some  parts  of  the  penance,  absolutions,  and  pardons,  the  possession  of 
which  was  represented  to  Christians  as  essential  to  salvation,  and  the 
sale  of  which  formed  a  most  gainful  traffic." 

As  to  the  passage  respecting  the  gift  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  Peter,  from  which  these  views  affect  to  be  derived,  it  is  most 
naturally  explained  by  the  very  apposite  and  obviously  explanatory  fact, 
that  this  apostle  was  the  first  preacher  of  the  Gospel  dispensation  in  its 
perfected  form,  both  to  the  Jews  at  the  day  of  pentecost,  and  afterward 
to  the  Gentiles.  Bishop  Horsley  applies  it  only  to  the  latter  of  these 
events,  to  which  indeed  it  may  principally,  but  not  exclusively,  refer. 

"  St,  Peter's  custody  of  the  keys  was  a  temporary,  not  a  perpetual 
authority:  its  object  was  not  individuals,  but  the  whole  human  race. 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth  is  the  true  Church  of  God.  It  is 
now  therefore  the  Christian  Church :  formerly  the  Jewish  Church  was 
that  kingdom.  The  true  Church  is  represented  in  this  text,  as  in  many 
passages  of  Holy  Writ,  under  the  image  of  a  walled  city,  to  be  entered 
only  at  the  gates.  Under  the  Mosaic  economy  these  gates  were  shut, 
and  particular  persons  only  could  obtain  admittance, — Israehtes  by 
birth,  or  by  legal  incorporation.  The  locks  of  these  gates  were  the  rites 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  which  obstructed  the  entrance  of  aliens.  But,  afler 
our  Lord's  ascension,  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  keys  of 
the  city  were  given  to  St.  Peter,  by  that  vision  which  taught  him,  and 
authorized  him  to  teach  others,  that  all  distinctions  of  one  nation  from 
another  were  at  an  end.  By  virtue  of  this  special  commission,  the 
great  apostle  applied  the  key,  pushed  back  the  bolt  of  the  lock,  and 
threw  the  gates  of  the  city  open  for  the  admission  of  the  whole  Gen- 
tile  world,  in  the  instance  of  Cornelius  and  his  family."  {Horsley's 
Sermons.) 

When  the  same  learned  prelate  would  also  refer  the  binding  and 
loosing  power  mentioned  in  the  above  texts  exclusively  to  Peter,  he 
forgets  that  in  the  passage  above  referred  to,  Matt,  xviii,  18,  it  is  given 
to  all  the  apostles,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven."  These  expressions  manifestly  refer  to  the  authoritative  de- 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  G03 

claration  of  any  thing  to  be  obligatory,  and  its  infraction  to  be  sinful, 
and  therefore  subject  to  punishment,  or  the  contrary ;  and  the  passage 
receives  sufhcient  iUustration  from  the  words  of  our  Lord  to  his  apostles, 
after  his  resurrection,  when,  after  breathing  upon  them,  he  said, "  Re- 
ceive ye  the  Holy  Ghost :  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
to  them ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained,"  John  xx, 
22,  23.  To  quahfy  them  for  this  authoritative  declaration  of  what  was 
obligatory  upon  men,  or  otherwise ;  and  of  the  terms  upon  which  sins 
are  "  remitted,"  and  the  circumstances  under  which  they  are  "  retained  ;" 
they  previously  received  the  Holy  Ghost, — a  sufficient  proof  that  this 
power  was  connected  with  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  apostles ;  and 
beyond  those  inspired  men  it  could  not  extend,  unless  equally  strong 
miraculous  evidence  of  the  same  degree  of  inspiration  were  afforded  by 
any  others.  The  manner  also  in  which  the  apostles  exercised  this 
power  elucidates  the  subject.  We  have  no  instance  at  all  of  their  for- 
giving the  sins  of  any  individuals ;  they  merely  proclaimed  the  terms  of 
pardon.  And  we  have  no  instance  of  their  "  retaining"  the  sins  of  any 
one,  except  by  declaring  them  condemned  by  the  laws  of  the  Gospel, 
of  which  they  were  the  preachers.  They  authoritatively  explain  in 
their  writings  the  terms  of  forgiveness ;  they  state  as  to  duty  what  is 
obligatory,  and  what  is  not  obhgatory,  upon  Christians  ;  they  pronounce 
sinners  of  various  kinds,  impenitent  and  unbelieving,  to  be  under  God's 
wrath  ;  and  they  declare  certain  apostates  to  be  put  beyond  forgiveness 
by  their  own  act,  not  by  apostolic  excommunication ;  and  thus  they 
bind  and  loose,  remit  sins  and  retain  them.  The  meaning  of  these  pas- 
sages is  in  this  manner  explained  by  the  practice  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves, and  we  may  also  see  the  reason  why  in  Matthew  xviii,  a  similar 
declaration  stands  connected  with  the  censures  of  a  Church :  "  More- 
over, if  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault 
between  thee  and  him  alone ;  if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained 
thy  brother.  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or 
two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may 
be  established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the 
Church ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a 
heathen  man  and  as  a  publican ;  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye 
shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall 
loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

That  here  there  may  be  a  reference  to  a  provision  made  among  the 
Jews  for  settling  questions  of  accusation  and  dispute  by  the  elders  of 
their  synagogues,  is  probable  ;  but  it  is  also  clear  that  our  Lord  looked 
forward  to  the  establishment  of  his  own  Church,  which  was  to  displace 
the  synagogue ;  and  that  there  might  be  infallible  rules  to  guide  that 
Church  in  its  judgment  on  moral  cases,  he  turns  to  the  disciples,  to 
whom  the  discourse  is  addressed,  and  says  to  them,  "  Whatsoever  ye," 

2 


604  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

not  the  Churchy  "  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and 
whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  Of  the 
disciples  then  present  the  subsequent  history  leads  us  to  conclude,  that 
he  principally  meant  that  the  apostles  should  be  endued  with  this  power, 
and  that  they  were  to  be  the  inspired  persons  who  were  to  furnish  "  the 
Church"  with  infallible  rules  of  judgment,  in  all  such  cases  of  dispute 
and  accusation.  When,  therefore,  any  Church  rightly  interprets  these 
apostolic  rules,  and  rightly  applies  them  to  particular  cases,  it  then 
exercises  a  discipline  which  is  not  only  approved,  but  is'also  confirmed, 
in  heaven  by  the  concurring  dispensations  of  God,  who  respects  his  own 
inspirations  in  his  apostles.  The  whole  shows  the  careful  and  solemn 
manner  in  which  all  such  investigations  are  to  be  conducted,  and  the 
serious  effect  of  them.  It  is  by  the  admonishing  and  putting  away  of 
offenders,  that  the  Church  bears  its  testimony  against  all  sin  before  the 
world ;  and  it  is  thus  that  she  maintains  a  salutary  influence  over  her 
members,  by  the  well-grounded  fear  of  those  censures  which,  when 
Scripturally  administered,  are  sanctioned  by  Christ  its  Head ;  and  which, 
when  they  extend  to  excision  from  the  body,  and  no  error  of  judgment, 
or  sinister  intention,  vitiates  the  proceeding,  separate  the  oflenders 
from  that  special  grace  of  Christ  which  is  promised  to  the  faithful  col- 
lected into  a  Church  state, — a  loss,  an  evil,  and  a  danger,  which  nothing 
but  repentance,  humiliation,  and  a  return  to  God  and  his  people,  can 
repair.  For  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  this  part  of  discipline  is  an  ordi- 
nance of  Christ,  not  only  for  the  maintenance  of  the  character  of  his 
Churches,  and  the  preservation  of  their  influence  in  the  world ;  but  for 
the  spiritual  benefit  of  the  offenders  themselves.  To  this  effect  are  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  Paul  as  to  the  immoral  Corinthian, — "  to  deliver 
such  a  one  to  Satan,  for  the  destruction  of  the  jlesh,''  the  dominion  of 
his  bodily  appetites,  "  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  The  practice  of  many  of  the  ancient  Churches  was,  in 
this  respect,  rigid ;  in  several  of  the  circumstances  far  too  much  so ; 
and  thus  it  assumed  a  severity  much  more  appalling  than  in  the  apos- 
tolic times.  It  shows,  however,  how  deeply  the  necessity  of  maintain- 
ing moral  discipline  was  felt  among  them,  and  in  substance,  though  not 
in  every  part  of  the  mode,  is  worthy  of  remembrance.  "  When  disciples 
of  Christ  who  had  dishonoured  his  religion  by  committing  any  gross 
immorality,  or  by  relapsing  into  idolatry,  were  cut  off  from  the  Church 
by  the  sentence  of  excommunication ;  they  were  kept,  often  for  years, 
in  a  state  of  penance,  however  desirous  to  be  re-admitted.  They  made 
a  public  confession  of  their  faith,  accompanied  with  the  most  humihating 
expressions  of  grief.  For  some  time  they  stood  without  the  doors, 
while  the  Christians  were  employed  in  worship.  Afterward  they  were 
allowed  to  enter ;  then  to  stand  during  a  part  of  the  service  ;  then  to 
remain  during  the  whole  :  but  they  were  not  permitted  to  partake  of 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  605 

the  Lord's  Supper,  till  a  formal  absolution  was  pronounced  by  the 
Church.  The  time  of  the  penance  was  sometimes  shortened,  when 
the  anguish  of  their  mind,  or  any  occasional  distress  of  body,  threatened 
the  danger  of  their  dying  in  that  condition,  or  when  those  who  were 
then  suffering  persecution,  or  other  deserving  members  of  the  Church 
interceded  for  them,  and  became,  by  this  intercession,  in  some  measure, 
sureties  for  their  future  good  behaviour.  The  duration  of  the  penance, 
the  acts  required  while  it  continued,  and  the  manner  of  the  absolution, 
varied  at  different  times.  The  matter  was,  from  its  nature,  subject  to 
much  abuse  ;  it  was  often  taken  under  the  cognizance  of  ancient  coun- 
cils ;  and  a  great  part  of  their  canons  was  employed  in  regulating  the 
exercise  of  discipline."  {HilVs  Lectures.) 

In  concluding  this  chapter,  it  may  be  observed,  that  however  difficult 
it  may  be,  in  some  cases,  to  adjust  modes  of  Church  government,  so  that 
in  the  view  of  all,  the  principles  of  the  New  Testament  may  be  fully 
recognized,  and  the  ends  for  which  Churches  are  collected  may  be 
effectually  accomphshed,  this  labour  will  always  be  greatly  smoothed, 
by  a  steady  regard,  on  each  side,  to  duties  as  well  as  to  rights.  These 
are  equally  imperative  upon  ministers,  upon  subordinate  officers,  and 
upon  the  private  members  of  every  Church.  Charity,  candour,  humi- 
lity, pubhc  spirit,  zeal,  a  forgiving  spirit,  and  the  desire,  the  strong 
desire,  of  unity  and  harmony,  ought  to  pervade  all,  as  well  as  a  con- 
stant remembrance  of  the  great  and  solemn  truth,  that  Christ  is  the 
Judge,  as  well  as  the  Saviour  of  his  Churches.  While  the  people  are 
docile  ;  obedient  to  the  word  of  exhortation  ;  wilhng  to  submit,  "  in  the 
Lord,"  to  those  who  "  preside  over  them,"  and  are  charged  to  exercise 
Christ's  discipline  ;  and  while  ministers  are  "  gentle  among  them,"  after 
the  example  of  St.  Paul, — a  gentleness,  however,  which  in  his  case, 
winked  at  no  evil,  and  kept  back  no  truth,  and  compromised  no  prin- 
ciple,  and  spared  no  obstinate  and  incurable  offender, — while  they  feed 
the  flock  of  Christ  with  sound  doctrine,  and  axe  intent  upon  their  edifi- 
cation,  watching  over  them  "  as  they  that  must  give  account,"  and  study, 
live,  and  labour,  for  no  other  ends,  than  to  present  that  part  of  the 
Church  committed  to  their  care  "  perfect  in  Christ  Jesus ;"  every  Church 
will  fall  as  it  were  naturally  and  without  effort  into  its  proper  "  order. '^ 
Pure  and  undefiled  religion  in  Churches,  like  the  first  poetry,  creates 
those  subordinate  rules  by  which  it  is,  afterward,  guarded  and  governed  ; 
and  the  best  canons  of  both  are  those  which  are  dictated  by  the  fresb 
and  primitive  effusions  of  their  own  inspiration. 

2 


606  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

CHAPTER  II. 

Institutions  of  Christianity^ — The  Sacraments. 

The  number  of  sacraments  is  held  by  all  Protestants  to  be  but  two, — 
Baptmn^  and  the  Lord's  Supper ;  because  they  find  no  other  instituted 
in  the  New  Testament,  or  practised  in  the  early  Church.  The  super- 
stition of  the  Church  of  Rome  has  added  no  fewer  than  five  to  the  num. 
ber, — Confirmation,  penance,  orders,  matrimony,  and,  extreme  unction. 

The  word  used  by  the  Greek  fathers  for  sacrament  was  (xutfTrjpiov. — 
In  the  New  Testament  this  word  always  means,  as  Campbell  has  showed, 
either  a  secret, — something  unknown  till  revealed  ;  or  the  spiritual 
meaning  of  some  emblem  or  type.  In  both  these  senses  it  is  rendered 
sacr amentum  in  the  Vulgate  translation,  which  shows  that  the  latter 
word  was  formerly  used  in  a  large  signification.  As  the  Greek  term 
was  employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  express  the  hidden  meaning 
of  an  external  symbol,  as  in  Revelation  i,  20,  "  the  mystery  of  the  seven 
stars,"  it  was  naturally  applied  by  early  Christians  to  the  symbolical 
rite  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  as  some  of  the  most  sacred  and  retired 
parts  of  the  ancient  heathen  worship  were  called  mysteries,  from  which 
all  but  the  initiated  were  excluded,  the  use  of  the  same  term  to  designate 
that  most  sacred  act  of  Christian  worship,  which  was  strictly  confined 
to  the  approved  members  of  the  Church,  was  probably  thought  pecu- 
liarly  appropriate.  The  Latin  word  sacramentum,  in  its  largest  sense, 
may  signify  a  sacred  ceremony ;  and  is  the  appellation,  also,  of  the 
military  oath  of  fidehty  taken  by  the  Roman  soldiers.  For  both  these 
reasons,  probably,  the  term  sacrament  was  adopted  by  the  Latin  Chris- 
tians.  For  the  first,  because  of  the  peculiar  sacredness  of  the  Lord's 
Supper ;  and  for  the  second,  because  of  that  engagement  to  be  faithful 
to  the  commands  of  Christ,  their  heavenly  Leader,  which  was  implied  in 
this  ordinance,  and  impressed  upon  them  by  so  sacred  a  solemnity.  It 
was,  perhaps,  from  the  designation  of  this  ordinance,  by  the  term  sacra- 
mentum, by  the  Christians  whom  Pliny  examined  as  to  their  faith  and 
modes  of  worship,  that  he  thus  expresses  himself  in  his  letter  to  the 
Emperor  Trajan  : — "  From  their  affirmations  I  learned  that  the  sum  of 
all  their  offence,  call  it  fault  or  error,  was,  that  on  a  day  fixed  they  used 
to  assemble  before  sunrise,  and  sing  together,  in  alternate  responses, 
hymns  to  Christ,  as  a  Deity ;  binding  themselves  by  the  solemn  engage- 
ments  of  an  oath,  not  to  commit  any  manner  of  wickedness,"  &c. — 
The  term  sacrament  was  also  at  an  early  period  given  to  baptism, 
as  well  as  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  and  is  now  confined  among  Pro- 
testants  to  these  two  ordinances  only.     The  distinction  between  sacra- 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  607 

merits,  and  other  religious  rites,  is  well  stated  by  Burnet.  {On  the 
Articles.) 

"  This  difference  is  to  be  put  between  sacraments  and  other  ritual 
actions  ;  that  whereas  other  rites  are  badges  and  distinctions  by  which 
Christians  are  known,  a  sacrament  is  more  than  a  bare  matter  of  form ; 
as  in  the  Old  Testament,  circumcision  and  propitiatory  sacrifices  were 
things  of  a  different  nature  and  order  from  all  the  other  ritual  precepts 
concerning  their  cleansings,  the  distinctions  of  days,  places,  and  meats. 
These  were,  indeed,  precepts  given  them  of  God ;  but  they  were  not 
federal  acts  of  renewing  the  covenant,  or  reconciling  themselves  to  God. 
By  circumcision  they  received  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  were 
brought  under  the  obligation  of  the  whole  law ;  they  were  made  by  it 
debtors  to  it ;  and  when  by  their  sins  they  had  provoked  God's  wrath, 
they  were  reconciled  to  him  by  their  sacrifices,  with  which  atonement 
was  made,  and  so  their  sins  were  forgiven  them  ;  the  nature  and  end 
of  those  was,  to  be  federal  acts,  in  the  offering  of  which  the  Jews  kept 
to  their  part  of  the  covenant,  and  in  the  accepting  of  which  God  main- 
tained it  on  his  part ;  so  we  see  a  plain  difference  between  these  and  a 
mere  rite,  which  though  commanded,  yet  must  pass  only  for  the  badge 
of  a  profession,  as  the  doing  of  it  is  an  act  of  obedience  to  a  Divine 
law.  Now,  in  the  new  dispensation,  though  our  Saviour  has  eased 
us  of  that  law  of  ordinances,  that  grievous  yoke,  and  those  beggarly 
elements,  which  were  laid  upon  the  Jews ;  yet  since  we  are  still  in  the 
body  subject  to  our  senses,  and  to  sensible  things,  he  has  appointed 
some  federal  actions  to  be  both  the  visible  stipulations  and  professions 
of  our  Christianity,  and  the  conveyancers  to  us  of  the  blessings  of  the 
Gospel." 

It  is  this  view  of  the  two  sacraments,  as  federal  acts,  which  sweeps 
away  the  five  superstitious  additions  that  the  temerity  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  has  dared  to  elevate  to  the  same  rank  of  sacredness  and 
importance. 

As  it  is  usual  among  men  to  confirm  covenants  by  visible  and  solemn 
forms,  and  has  been  so  from  the  most  ancient  times,  so  when  almighty 
God  was  pleased  to  enter  into  covenant  engagements  with  men,  he 
condescended  to  the  same  methods  of  affording,  on  his  part,  sensible 
assurances  of  his  fidehty,  and  to  require  the  same  from  them.  Thus, 
circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  ;  and 
when  the  great  covenant  of  grace  was  made  in  the  Son  of  God  with  all 
nations,  it  was  agreeable  to  this  analogy  to  expect  that  he  would  insti- 
tute some  constantly-recurring  visible  sign,  in  confirmation  of  his 
mercy  to  us,  which  should  encourage  our  rehance  upon  his  promises, 
and  have  the  force  of  a  perpetual  renewal  of  the  covenant  between  the 
parties.  Such  is  manifestly  the  character  and  ends  both  of  the  institu- 
tion of  baptism  £ind  the  Lord's  Supper ;  but  as  to  the  five  additional 

2 


608  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

sacraments  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  "  they  have  not  any  visible  sign  ot  \ 
ceremony  ordained  of  God,"  (Article  2dth  of  the  Church  of  England,)  ' 
and  they  stand  in  no  direct  connection  with  any  covenant  engagement 
entered  into  by  him  with  his  creatures.  Corifirmation  rests  on  no  Scrip- 
tural  authority  at  all.  Penance,  if  it  mccui  any  thing  more  than  repent- 
ance, is  equally  unsanctioned  by  Scripture  ;  and  if  it  mean  "  repentance 
toward  God,"  it  is  no  more  a  sacrament  than  faith.  Orders,  or  the 
ordination  of  ministers,  is  an  apostoUc  command,  but  has  in  it  no  greater 
indication  of  a  sacramental  act  than  any  other  such  command, — say  the 
excommunication  of  obstinate  sinners  from  the  Church,  which  with  just 
as  good  a  reason  might  be  elevated  into  a  sacrament.  Marriage  ap- 
pears to  have  been  made  by  the  papists  a  sacrament  for  this  curious 
reason,  that  the  Apostle  Paul,  when  speaking  of  the  love  and  union  of 
husband  and  wife,  and  taking  occasion  from  that  to  allude  to  the  love 
of  Christ  to  his  Church,  says,  "  This  is  a  great  mystery, ^^  which  the 
Vulgate  version  translates,  "  Sacramentum  hoc  magnum  est ;"  thus 
they  confound  the  large  and  the  restricted  sense  of  the  word  sacrament, 
and  forget  that  the  true  "  mystery"  spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  lies  not  in 
marriage,  but  in  the  union  of  Christ  with  his  people, — "  This  is  a  great 
mystery,  hut  I  speak  concerning  Christ  and  the  Church."  If,  however, 
the  use  of  the  word  "  mystery"  in  this  passage  by  St.  Paul,  were  suffi- 
cient  to  prove  marriage  a  sacrament,  then  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, 
as  Beza  observes,  might  be  the  eighth  sacrament,  since  St.  Paul  terms 
that  "  a  mystery,"  Eph.  i,  9,  which  the  Vulgate,  in  like  manner  trans- 
lates by  "  sacramentum.''^  The  last  of  their  sacraments  is  extreme  unc- 
tion, of  which  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  nowhere  prescribed  in 
Scripture  ;  and  if  it  were,  has  clearly  nothing  in  it  of  a  sacramental 
character.  The  passage  in  St.  James's  Epistle  to  which  they  refer, 
cannot  serve  them  at  all ;  for  the  Romanists  use  extreme  unction 
only  when  all  hope  of  recovery  is  past,  whereas  the  prayers  and  the 
anointing  mentioned  by  St.  James  were  resorted  to  in  order  to  a  miracu- 
lous cure,  for  life,  and  not  for  death.  With  them,  therefore,  extreme 
unction  is  called  "the  sacrament  of  the  dying." 

Of  the  nature  of  sacraments  there  are  three  leading  views. 

The  first  is  that  taken  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  this  Church,  the  sacraments  contain  the 
grace  they  signify,  and  confer  grace,  ex  opere  operato,  by  the  work 
itself,  upon  such  as  do  not  put  an  obstruction  by  mortal  sin.  "  For 
these  sensible  and  natural  things,"  it  is  declared,  "  work  by  the  almighty 
power  of  God  in  the  sacraments  what  they  could  not  do  by  their  own 
power."  Nor  is  any  more  necessary  to  this  effect,  than  that  the  priests, 
"  who  make  and  consecrate  the  sacraments,  have  an  intention  of  doing 
what  the  Church  doth,  and  doth  intend  to  do."  (Cone.  Trid.  Can.  11.) 
According   therefore  to  this  doctrine,  the   matter  of  the    sacrament 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  60Jf 

derives  from  the  action  of  the  priest,  in  pronouncing  certain  words,  a 
Divine  virtue,  provided  it  be  the  intention  of  the  priest  to  give  to  that 
matter  such  a  Divine  virtue,  and  this  grace  is  conveyed  to  the  soul  of 
every  person  who  receives  it.  Nor  is  it  required  of  the  person  receiv- 
ing a  sacrament,  that  he  should  exercise  any  good  disposition,  or  pos- 
sess faith ;  for  such  is  conceived  to  be  the  physical  virtue  of  a  sacra- 
ment, that,  except  when  opposed  by  the  obstacle  of  a  mortal  sin,  the  act 
of  receiving  it  is  alone  sufficient  for  the  experience  of  its  efficacy. 
This  is  so  capital  an  article  of  faith  with  the  Romish  Church,  that  the 
council  of  Trent  anathematizes  all  who  deny  that  grace  is  not  conferred 
by  the  sacraments  from  the  act  itself  of  receiving  them,  and  affirm  that 
faith  only  in  the  Divine  promises  is  sufficient  to  the  obtaining  of  grace, 
— "  Se  quis  dixerit,  per  ipsa  nova  legis  sacramenta,  ex  opere  operato,  non 
conferri  gratiam,  sed  solum  jidem  divincB  promissionis  ad  gratiam  conse- 
quendam  siifficere,  anathema  sit.'''  (Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  vii,  Can.  8.)  It 
is  on  this  ground  also,  that  the  members  of  that  Church  argue  the  supe- 
riority of  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  to  those  of  the  Old  ; 
the  latter  having  been  effectual  only  ex  opere  operantis,  from  the  piety 
and  faith  of  the  persons  receiving  them,  while  the  former  confer  grace 
ex  opere  operato,  from  their  own  intrinsic  virtue,  and  an  immediate  phy- 
sical influence  upon  the  mind  of  the  receiver. 

The  first  great  objection  to  this  statement  is,  that  it  has  even  no  pre- 
tence of  authority  from  Scripture,  and  grounds  itself  wholly  upon  the 
alleged  traditions  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which,  in  fact,  are  just  what 
successive  inventors  of  superstitious  practices  have  thought  proper  to 
make  them.  The  second  is,  that  it  is  decidedly  anti-scriptural ;  for  as 
the  only  true  notion  of  a  sacrament  is,  that  it  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  a 
covenant ;  and  as  the  saving  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace  are 
made  expressly  to  depend  upon  a  true  faith ;  the  condition  of  grace 
being  made  by  the  Church  of  Rome  the  act  of  receiving  a  sacrament 
independent  of  true  faith,  she  impudently  rejects  the  great  condition  of 
salvation  as  laid  down  in  God's  word,  and  sets  up  in  its  place  another 
of  an  opposite  kind  by  mere  human  authority.  The  third  is,  that  it 
debases  an  ordinance  of  God  from  a  rational  service  into  a  mere  charm, 
disconnected  with  every  mental  exercise,  and  working  its  effect  physi- 
cally, and  not  morally.  The  fourth  is  its  hcentious  tendency  ;  for  as  a 
very  large  class  of  sins  is  by  the  Romish  Church  allowed  to  be  venial, 
and  nothing  but  a  mortal  sin  can  prevent  the  recipient  of  the  sacrament 
from  receiving  the  grace  of  God;  men  may  live  in- the  practice  of  all 
these  venial  offences,  and  consequently  in  an  unrenewed  habit  of  soul, 
and  yet  be  assured  of  the  Divine  favour,  and  of  eternal  salvation  ;  thus 
again  boldly  contradicting  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament. — 
Finally,  whatever  privileges  the  sacraments  are  designed  to  confer,  all 
of  them  are  made  by  this  doctrine  to  depend,  not  upon  the  state  of  the 
Vol.  II.  39 


610  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

receiver's  mind,  but  upon  the  "  intention"  of  the  administrator,  who,  if 
not  intending  to  impart  the  physical  virtue  to  the  elements,  renders  the 
sacrament  of  no  avail  to  the  recipient,  although  he  performs  all  the 
external  acts  of  the  ceremony. 

The  opposite  opinion  to  this  gross  and  unholy  doctrine  is  that  main- 
tained  by  Socinus,  and  adopted  generally  by  his  followers  :  to  which  also 
the  notions  of  some  orthodox  Protestants  have  too  carelessly  leaned. 
The  view  taken  on  the  subject  of  the  sacraments  by  such  persons  is, 
that  they  differ  not  essentially  from  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of  religion ; 
but  that  their  peculiarity  consists  in  their  emblematic  character,  under 
which  they  represent  what  is  spiritual  and  invisible,  and  are  memorials 
of  past  events.  Their  sole  use  therefore  is  to  cherish  pious  sentiments, 
by  leading  the  mind  to  such  meditations  as  are  adapted  to  excite  them. 
Some  also  add,  that  they  are  the  badges  of  a  Christian  profession,  and 
the  instituted  means  by  which  Christians  testify  their  faith  in  Christ. 

The  fault  of  the  popish  opinion  is  superstitious  excess ;  the  fault  of 
the  latter  scheme  is  that  of  defect.  The  sacraments  are  emblematical ; 
they  are  adapted  to  excite  pious  sentiments ;  they  are  memorials,  at 
least  the  Lord's  Supper  bears  this  character ;  they  are  badges  of  pro- 
fession ;  they  are  the  appointed  means  for  declaring  our  faith  in  Christ ; 
and  so  far  is  this  view  superior  to  the  popish  doctrine,  that  it  elevates 
the  sacraments  from  the  base  and  degrading  character  of  a  charm  and 
incantation,  to  that  of  a  spiritual  and  reasonable  service,  and  instead  of 
making  them  substitutes  for  faith  and  good  works,  renders  them  subser- 
vient to  both. 

But  if  the  sacraments  are  federal  rites,  that  is,  if  they  are  covenant 
transactions,  they  must  have  a  more  extensive  and  a  deeper  import  than 
this  view  of  the  subject  conveys.  If  circumcision  was  "  a  token,"  and 
a  "  seal"  of  the  covenant  by  which  God  engaged  to  justify  men  by  faith, 
then,  as  we  shall  subsequently  show,  since  Christian  baptism  came  in 
its  place,  it  has  precisely  the  same  office  ;  if  the  passover  was  a  sign,  a 
pledge  or  seal,  and  subsequently  a  memorial,  then  these  characters  will 
belong  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  the  relation  of  which  to  the  "  New  Testa- 
ment," or  Covenant,  "  in  the  blood"  of  our  Saviour,  is  expressly  stated 
by  himself.  What  is  the  import  of  the  terms  sign  and  seal,  will  be  here- 
after considered  ;  but  it  is  enough  here  to  suggest  them,  to  show  that  the 
second  opinion  above  stated  loses  sight  of  these  peculiarities,  and  is  there- 
fore defect've. 

The  third  opinion  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  the  formularies  of 
several  Protestant  Churches. 

The  HeiJelberg  Catechism  has  the  following  question  and  reply : — 

*'  What  are  the  sacraments  ?" 

"  They  are  holy  visible  signs  and  seals,  ordained  by  God  for  this  end, 
that  he  may  more  fallv  declare  and  seal  by  them  the  promise  of  his 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  61 1 

Gospel  unto  us ;  to  wit,  that  not  only  unto  all  believers  in  general,  but 
unto  each  of  them  in  particular,  he  freely  giveth  remission  of  sins  and 
life  eternal,  upon  the  account  of  that  only  sacrifice  of  Christ,  which  he 
accomplished  upon  the  cross." 

The  Church  of  England,  in  her  Twenty-fifth  Article,  thus  expresses 
herself: — 

"  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  be  not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  Chris- 
tian men's  profession,  but  rather  they  be  sure  witnesses,  and  effectual 
signs  of  grace,  and  God's  will  toward  us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work 
invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  con- 
firm our  faith  in  him." 

The  Church  of  Scotland,  in  the  one  hundred  and  srxty.sfecond  Ques- 
tion  of  her  Larger  Catechism,  asks, 

"  What  is  a  sacrament  ?"  and  replies  : — 

"  A  sacrament  is  a  holy  ordinance,  instituted  by  Christ  in  his  Church, 
to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit,  unto  those  within  the  covenant  of  grace,  the 
benefits  of  his  mediation  ;  to  strengthen  and  increase  their  faith,  and  all 
other  graces  ;  to  obhge  them  to  obedience  ;  to  testify  and  cherish  their 
love  and  communion  one  with  another ;  and  to  distinguish  them  from 
those  that  are  without." 

In  all  these  descriptions  of  a  sacrament,  terms  are  employed  of  just 
and  weighty  meaning,  which  will  subsequently  require  notice.  Gene- 
rally, it  may,  however,  here  be  observed,  th^t  th-ey  all  assume  that  there 
is  in  this  ordinance  an  express  institution  of  God  ;  that  there  is  this  es- 
sential difference  between  them  and  every  other  symbolical  ceremony, 
that  they  are  seals  as  well  as  signs,  that  is,  that  they  afford  pledges  on 
the  part  of  God  of  grace  and  salvation  ;  that  as  a  covenant  has  two  par- 
ties, our  external  acts  in  receiving  the  sacraments  are  indications  of  cer- 
tain states  and  dispositions  of  our  mind  with  regard  to  God's  covenant, 
without  which  none  can  have  a  personal  participation  in  its  benefits,  and 
so  the  sacrament  is  useless  where  these  are  not  found ;  that  there  are 
words  of  institution  ;  and  a  promise  also  by  which  the  sign  and  the  thing 
signified  are  connected  together. 

The  covenant  of  which  they  are  the  seals,  is  that  called  by  the  Hei. 
delberg  Catechism,  "  the  promise  of  the  Gospel ;"  the  import  of  which 
is,  that  God  giveth  freely  to  every  one  that  believeth  remission  of  sins, 
with  all  spiritual  blessings,  and  "  life  eternal,  upon  the  account  of  that 
only  sacrifice  of  Christ  which  he  accomplished  upon  the  cross." 

As  SIGNS,  they  are  visible  and  symboUcal  expositions  of  what  the  Ar- 
ticle of  the  Church  of  England,  above  quoted,  calls  "  the  grace  of  God," 
and  his  "  will,"  that  is,  his  "  good  will  toward  us ;"  or,  according  to  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  "  significations  of  the  benefits  of  his  mediation ;" 
that  is,  they  exhibit  to  the  senses,  under  appropriate  emblems,  the  same 
benefits  as  are  exhibited  in  another  form  m  the  doctrines  and  promises 

2 


612  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES-  [PART 

of  the  word  of  God,  so  that  "  the  eye  may  affect  and  instruct  the  heart," 
and  that  for  the  strong  incitement  of  our  faith,  our  desire,  and  our  grati- 
tude. It  ought  nevertheless  to  be  remembered  that  they  are  not  signs 
merely  of  the  grace  of  God  to  us,  but  of  our  obligations  to  him  ;  obliga- 
tions, however,  still  flowing  from  the  same  grace. 

They  are  also  seals.  A  seal  is  a  confirming  sign,  or,  according  to 
theological  language,  there  is  in  a  sacrament  a  signum  signijicans,  and  a 
signum  conjirmans  ;  the  former  of  which  is  said,  signijicare^  to  notify  or 
to  declare ;  the  latter  ohsignare,  to  set  one's  seal  to,  to  witness.  As, 
therefore,  the  sacraments,  when  considered  as  signs,  contain  a  declara- 
tion of  the  same  doctrines  and  promises  which  the  written  word  of  God 
exhibits,  but  addressed  by  a  significant  emblem  to  the  senses ;  so  also 
as  seals,  or  pledges,  they  confirm  the  same  promises  which  are  assured 
to  us  by  God's  own  truth  and  faithfulness  in  his  word,  (which  is  the  main 
ground  of  all  affiance  in  his  mercy,)  and  by  his  indwelling  Spirit  by 
which  we  are  "  sealed,"  and  have  in  our  hearts  "  the  earnest"  of  our 
heavenly  inheritance.  This  is  done  by  an  external  and  visible  institu- 
tion ;  so  that  God  has  added  these  ordinances  to  the  promises  of  his 
word,  not  only  to  bring  his  merciful  purpose  toward  us  in  Christ  to  mind, 
but  constantly  to  assure  us  that  those  who  believe  in  him  shall  be  and 
are  made  partakers  of  his  grace.  These  ordinances  are  a  pledge  to 
them,  that  Christ  and  his  benefits  are  theirs,  while  they  are  required,  at 
the  same  time,  by  faith,  as  well  as  by  the  visible  sign,  to  signify  their 
compliance  with  his  covenant,  which  may  be  called  "  setting  to  their 
seal."  "  The  sacraments  are  God's  seals,  as  they  are  ordinances  given 
by  him  for  the  confirmation  of  our  faith  that  he  would  be  our  covenant 
God ;  and  they  are  our  seals,  or  we  set  our  seal  thereunto,  when  we 
visibly  profess  that  we  give  up  ourselves  to  him  to  be  his  people,  and,  in 
the  exercise  of  a  true  faith,  look  to  be  partakers  of  the  benefits  which 
Christ  hath  purchased,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  covenant."  [Dr, 
Ridgley.) 

The  passage  quoted  from  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  has  a  clause 
which  is  of  great  importance  in  explaining  the  design  of  the  sacraments. 
They  are  "  visible  signs  and  seals  ordained  by  God  for  this  end,  that  he 
may  more  fully  declare,  and  seal  by  them  the  promise  of  his  Gospel  unto 
us,  to  wit,  that  not  only  unto  all  believers  in  general,  hut  to  each  of  them 
in  particular,  he  freely  giveth  remission  of  sins  and  life  eternal,  upon  the 
account  of  that  only  sacrifice  of  Christ,  which  he  accomplished  upon  the 
cross."  For  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  administration  is  to  particular 
individuals  separately,  both  in  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, — "  Take, 
eat,"  "  drink  ye  all  of  this  ;"  so  that  the  institution  of  the  sign  and  seal 
of  the  covenant,  and  the  acceptance  of  this  sign  and  seal  is  a  solemn 
transaction  between  God  and  each  individual.  From  which  it  follows, 
that  to  every  one  to  whom  the  sign  is  exhibited,  a  seal  and  pledge  of  the 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  613 

invisible  grace  is  also  given  ;  and  every  individual  who  draws  near  with 
a  true  heart  and  full  assurance  of  faith,  does  in  his  awn  person  enter 
into  God's  covenant,  and  to  him  in  particular  that  covenant  stands  firm. 
He  renews  it  also  in  every  sacramental  act,  the  repetition  of  which  is 
appointed ;  and  being  authorized  by  a  Divine  and  standing  institution 
thus  to  put  in  his  claim  to  the  full  grace  of  the  covenant,  he  receives 
thereby  continual  assurances  of  the  love  and  faithfulness  of  a  God  who 
changes  not ;  but  exhibits  the  same  signs  and  pledges  of  the  same  cove- 
nant of  grace,  to  the  constant  acceptance  of  every  individual  believer 
throughout  all  the  ages  of  his  Church,  which  is  charged  with  the  minis- 
tration of  these  sacred  symbols  of  his  mercy  to  mankind.  This  is  an 
important  and  most  encouraging  circumstance. 


CHAPTER  HI. 

The  Institutions  of  the  Church — Baptism. 

The  obligation  of  baptism  rests  upon  the  example  of  our  Lord,  who, 
by  his  disciples,  baptized  many  that  by  his  discourses  and  miracles  were 
brought  to  profess  faith  in  him  as  the  Messias  ; — upon  his  solemn  com. 
mand  to  his  apostles  after  his  resurrection,  "  Go  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  Matt,  xxviii,  19.  And  upon  the  practice  of  the  apostles 
themselves,  who  thus  showed  that  they  did  not  understand  baptism,  like 
our  Quakers,  in  a  mystical  sense.  Thus  St.  Peter,  in  his  sermon  upon 
the  day  of  pentecost,  exhorts,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of 
you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Acts  ii,  38. 

As  t(f  this  sacrament,  which  has  occasioned  endless  and  various  con- 
troversies, three  things  require  examination, — its  nature  ;  its  subjects  ; 
and  its  mode. 

I.  Its  Nature.  The  Romanists,  agreeably  to  their  superstitious 
opmion  as  to  the  efficacy  of  sacraments,  consider  baptism  adminis- 
tered by  a  priest  having  a  good  intention,  as  of  if  self  applying  the  merits 
of  Christ  to  the  person  baptized.  According  to  them,  baptism  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  salvation,  and  they  therefore  admit  its  validity  when 
administered  to  a  dying  child  by  any  person  present,  should  there  be  no 
priest  at  hand.  From  this  view  of  its  efficacy  arises  their  distinction 
between  sins  committed  before  and  after  baptism.  The  hereditary  cor- 
ruption of  our  nature,  and  all  actual  sins  committed  before  baptism,  are 
said  to  be  entirely  removed  by  it ;  so  that  if  the  most  abandoned  person 
were  to  receive  it  for  the  first  time  in  the  article  of  death,  all  his  sins 
would  be  w^ashed  away.  But  all  sins  committed  after  baptism,  and  the 
infusion  of  that  grace  which  is  conveyed  by  the  sacrament,  must  be  ex. 


614  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

piated  by  penance.  In  this  notion  of  regeneration,  or  the  washing  away 
of  original  sin  by  baptism,  the  Roman  Church  followed  Augustine  ;  but 
as  he  was  a  predestinarian,  he  was  obliged  to  invent  a  distinction  be- 
tween those  who  are  regenerated,  and  those  who  are  predestinated  to 
eternal  life ;  so  that,  according  to  him,  although  all  the  baptized  are 
freed  from  that  corruption  which  is  entailed  upon  mankind  by  Adam's 
lapse,  and  experience  a  renovation  of  mind,  none  continue  to  walk  in 
that  state  but  the  predestinated.  The  Lutheran  Church  also  places  the 
efficacy  of  this  sacrament  in  regeneration,  by  which  faith  is  actually 
conveyed  to  the  soul  of  an  infant.  The  Church  of  England  in  her  bap- 
tismal services  has  not  departed  entirely  from  the  terms  used  by  the 
Romish  Church  from  which  she  separated.  She  speaks  of  those  who 
are  by  nature  "  born  in  sin,"  being  made  by  baptism  "  the  children  of 
grace,"  which  are,  however,  words  of  equivocal  import ;  and  she  gives 
thanks  to  God  "  that  it  hath  pleased  him  to  regenerate  this  infant  with 
his  Holy  Spirit,"  probably  using  the  term  regeneration  in  the  same  large 
sense  as  several  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and  not  in  its  modern  theological 
interpretation,  which  is  more  strict.  However  this  be,  a  controversy 
has  long  existed  in  the  English  Church  as  to  the  real  opinion  of  her 
founders  on  this  point ;  one  part  of  the  clergy  holding  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  baptism  unto  sal- 
vation ;  the  other  taking  different  views  not  only  of  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture, but  also  of  the  import  of  various  expressions  found  in  the  articles, 
catechisms,  and  offices  of  the  Church  itself.  The  Quakers  view  bap- 
tism only  as  spiritual,  and  thus  reject  the  rite  altogether,  as  one  of  the 
"  beggarly  elements"  of  former  dispensations  ;  while  the  Socinians  re- 
gard it  as  a  mere  mode  of  professing  the  religion  of  Christ.  Some  of 
them  indeed  consider  it  as  calculated  to  produce  a  moral  effect  upon 
those  who  submit  to  it,  or  who  witness  its  administration ;  while  others 
think  it  so  entirely  a  ceremony  of  induction  into  the  society  of  Chris. 
tians  from  Judaism  and  paganism,  as  to  be  necessary  only  when  such 
conversions  take  place,  so  that  it  might  be  wholly  laid  aside  in  Christian 
nations. 

We  have  called  baptism  a  federal  transaction ;  an  initiation  into,  and 
acceptance  of,  the  covenant  of  grace,  required  of  us  by  Christ  as  a 
visible  expression  and  act  of  that  faith  in  him  which  he  has  made  a  con- 
dition of  that  salvation.  It  is  a  point,  however,  of  so  much  importance 
to  estabhsh  the  covenant  character  of  this  ordinance,  and  so  much  of 
the  cpntroversy  as  to  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  depends  upon  it, 
that  we  may  consider  it  somewhat  at  large. 

That  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  of  which  circumcision  was  made 
the  sign  and  seal.  Gen.  xvii,  7,  was  the  general  covenant  of  grace,  and 
not  wholly,  or  even  chiefly^  a  political  and  national  covenant,  may  be 
satisfactorily  establishedv 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  615 

The  first  engagement  in  it  was,  that  God  would  "greatly  bless" 
Abraham  ;  which  promise,  although  it  comprehended  temporal  bless- 
ings, referred,  as  we  learn  from  St.  Paul,  more  fully  to  the  blessing  of 
his  justification  by  the  imputation  of  his  faith  for  righteousness,  with  all 
the  spiritual  advantages  consequent  upon  the  relation  which  was  thus 
established  between  him  and  God,  in  time  and  eternity.  The  second 
promise  in  the  covenant  was,  that  he  should  be  "  the  father  of  many 
nations,"  which  we  are  also  taught  by  St.  Paul  to  interpret  more  with 
reference  to  his  spiritual  seed,  the  followers  of  that  faith  whereof  cometh 
justification,  than  to  his  natural  descendants.  "  That  the  promise  might 
be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  not  only  to  that  which  is  by  the  law,  but  to  that 
also  which  is  by  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  ils  ally^^ — 
of  all  beUeving  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  The  third  stipulation  in  God's 
covenant  with  the  patriarch,  was  the  gift  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed 
of  "  the  land  of  Canaan;"  in  which  the  temporal  promise  was  manifestly 
but  the  type  of  the  higher  promise  of  a  heavenly  inheritance.  Hence 
St.  Paul  says,  "  By  faith  he  sojourned  in  the  land  of  promise,  dwell- 
ing in  tabernacles  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with  him  of  the  same 
promise  ;"  but  this  "  faith"  did  not  respect  the  fulfilment  of  the  temporal 
promise  ;  for  St.  Paul  adds,  "  they  looked  for  a  city  which  had  founda- 
tions, whose  builder  and  maker  is  God,"  Heb.  xi,  19.  The  next  pro- 
mise was,  that  God  would  always  be  "  a  God  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed 
after  him,"  a  promise  which  is  connected  with  the  highest  spiritual  bless- 
ings, such  as  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  sanctification  of  our  nature, 
as  well  as  with  a  visible  Church  state.  It  is  even  used  to  express  the 
felicitous  state  of  the  Church  in  heaven.  Rev.  xxi,  3.  The  final  engage- 
ment in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  was  that  in  Abraham's  "  seed,  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed ;"  and  this  blessing,  we  are  ex- 
pressly taught  by  St.  Paul,  was  nothing  less  than  the  justification  of  all 
nations,  that  is,  of  all  believers  in  all  nations,  by  faith  in  Christ : — "  And 
the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  by  faith, 
preached  before  the  Gospel  to  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations 
be  blessed.  So  then  they  who  are  of  faith,  are  blessed  with  believing 
Abraham,"  they  receive  the  same  blessing,  justification,  by  the  same 
means,  faith.  Gal.  iii,  8,  9. 

This  covenant  with  Abraham,  therefore,  although  it  respected  a 
natural  seed,  Isaac,  from  whom  a  numerous  progeny  was  to  spring ; 
and  an  earthly  inheritance  provided  for  this  issue,  the  land  of  Canaan ; 
and  a  special  covenant  relation  with  the  descendants  of  Isaac,  through 
the  line  of  Jacob,  to  whom  Jehovah  was  to  be  "  a  God,"  visibly  and 
specially,  and  they  a  visible  and  "  peculiar  people  ;"  yet  was,  under  all 
these  temporal,  earthly,  and  external  advantages,  but  a  higher  and  spi- 
ritual grace  embodying  itself  under  these  circumstances,  as  types  of  a 
dispensation  of  salvation  and  eternal  life,  to  all  who  should  follow  the 


616  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

faith  of  Abraham,  whose  justification  before  God  was  the  pattern  of  the 
justification  of  every  man,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  in  all  ages. 

Now,  of  this  covenant,  in  its  spiritual  as  well  as  in  its  temporal  pro- 
visions, circumcision  was  most  certainly  the  sacrament,  that  is,  the 
"  sign"  and  the  "  seal ;"  for  St.  Paul  thus  explains  the  case  :  "  And  he 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised."  And  as  this  right  was 
enjoined  upon  Abraham's  posterity,  so  that  every  "  uncircumcised  man 
child  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  was  not  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day," 
was  to  be  "  cut  off  from  his  people,"  by  the  special  judgment  of  God, 
and  that  because  "  he  had  broken  God's  covenant,"  Gen.  xvii,  14,  it 
therefore  follows  that  this  rite  was  a  constant  publication  of  God's  cove- 
nant of  grace  among  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  and  its  repetition  a 
continual  confirmation  of  that  covenant,  on  the  part  of  God,  to  all  prac- 
tising it  in  that  faith  of  which  it  was  the  ostensible  expression. 

As  the  covenant  of  grace  made  with  Abraham  was  bound  up  with 
temporal  promises  and  privileges,  so  circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal 
of  the  covenant  in  both  its  parts, — its  spiritual  and  its  temporal,  its  supe- 
rior and  inferior,  provisions.  The  spiritual  promises  of  the  covenant 
continued  unrestricted  to  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  whether  by 
Isaac  or  by  Ishmael ;  and  still  lower  down,  to  the  descendants  of  Esau 
as  well  as  to  those  of  Jacob.  Circumcision  was  practised  among  them 
all  by  virtue  of  its  Divine  institution  at  first ;  and  was  extended  to  their 
foreign  servants,  and  to  proselytes,  as  well  as  to  their  children ;  and 
wherever  the  sign  of  the  covenant  of  grace  was  by  Divine  appointment, 
there  it  was  as  a  seal  of  that  covenant,  to  all  who  believingly  used  it ; 
for  we  read  of  no  restriction  of  its  spiritual  blessings,  that  is,  its  saving 
engagements,  to  one  line  of  descent  from  Abraham  only.  But  over  the 
temporal  branch  of  the  covenant,  and  the  external  religious  privileges 
arising  out  of  it,  God  exercised  a  rightful  sovereignty,  and  expressly  re- 
stricted them  first  to  the  hue  of  Isaac,  and  then  to  that  of  Jacob,  with 
whose  descendants  he  entered  into  special  covenant  by  the  ministry  of 
Moses.  The  temporal  blessings  and  external  privileges  comprised 
under  general  expressions  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  were  explain- 
ed and  enlarged  under  that  of  Moses,  while  the  spiritual  blessings  re- 
mained unrestricted  as  before.  This  was  probably  the  reason  why 
circumcision  was  re-enacted  under  the  law  of  Moses.  It  was  a  con- 
firmation of  the  temporal  blessings  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  now,  by 
a  covenant  of  peculiarity,  made  over  to  them,  while  it  was  still  recog- 
nized as  a  consuetudinary  rite  which  had  descended  to  them  from  their 
fathers,  and  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  made  with 
Abraham  and  with  all  his  descendants  without  exception.  This  double 
reference  of  circumcision,  both  to  the  authority  of  Moses  and  to  that  of 
the  patriarchs,  is  found  in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  John  vii,  22  :  "  Moses 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  617 

therefore  gave  unto  you  circumcision,  not  because  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of 
the  fathers ;"  or,  as  it  is  better  translated  by  Campbell,  "  Moses  insti- 
tuted circumcision  among  you,  (not  that  it  is  from  Moses,  but  from  the 
patriarchs,)  and  ye  circumcise  on  the  Sabbath.  If  on  the  Sabbath  a  child 
receive  circumcision,  that  the  law  of  Moses  may  not  be  violated,"  &lc. 

From  these  observations,  the  controversy  in  the  apostolic  Churches 
respecting  circumcision  will  derive  much  elucidation. 

The  covenant  with  Abraham  prescribed  circumcision  as  an  act  of 
faith  in  its  promises,  and  a  pledge  [to  perform  its  conditions]  [on  the 
part  of  his  descendants.]  But  the  object  on  which  this  faith  rested, 
was  "  the  seed  of  Abraham,"  in  whom  the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to 
be  blessed  :  which  seed,  says  St.  Paul,  "is  Christ ;" — Christ  as  promised, 
not  yet  come.  When  the  Christ  had  come,  so  as  fully  to  enter  upon 
his  redeeming  offices,  he  could  no  longer  be  the  object  of  faith,  as  still 
to  come ;  and  this  leading  promise  of  the  covenant  being  accomphshed, 
the  sign  and  seal  of  it  vanished  away.  Nor  could  circumcision  be  con- 
tinued in  this  view,  by  any,  without  an  implied  denial  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  the  expected  seed  of  Abraham.  Circumcision  also  as  an  insti- 
tution of  Moses,  who  continued  it  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  both  in  its  spiritual  and  temporal  provisions,  but  with  respect 
to  the  latter  made  it  also  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  restriction  of  its  tem- 
poral blessings  and  peculiar  religious  privileges  to  the  descendants  of 
Israel,  was  terminated  by  the  entrance  of  our  Lord  upon  his  office  of 
Mediator,  in  which  office  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed  in  him.  The 
Mosaic  edition  of  the  covenant  not  only  guaranteed  the  land  of  Canaan, 
J)ut  the  peculiarity  of  the  Israelites,  as  the  people  and  visible  Church  of 
God  to  the  exclusion  of  others,  except  by  proselytism.  But  when  our 
Lord  commanded  the  Gospel  to  be  preached  to  '•  all  nations,"  and 
opened  the  gates  of  the  "  common  salvation"  to  all,  whether  Gentiles  or 
Jews,  circumcision,  as  the  sign  of  a  qovenant  of  peculiarity  and  rehgious 
distinction,  was  done  away  also.  It  had  not  only  no  reason  remaining, 
but  the  continuance  of  the  rite  involved  the  recognition  of  exclusive 
privileges  which  had  been  terminated  by  Christ. 

This  will  explain  the  views  of  the  Apostle  Paul  on  this  great  question. 
He  declares  that  in  Christ  there  is  neither  circumcision  nor  uncircum- 
cision  ;  that  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision, 
but  "  faith  that  worketh  by  love  ;"  faith  in  the  seed  of  Abraham  already 
come  and  already  engaged  in  his  mediatorial  and  redeeming  work  ;  faith, 
by  virtue  of  which  the  Gentiles  came  into  the  Church  of  Christ  on  the 
same  terms  as  the  Jews  themselves,  and  were  justified  and  saved. 
The  doctrine  of  the  non-necessity  of  circumcision,  he  applies  to  the 
Jews  as  well  as  to  the  Gentiles,  although  he  specially  resists  the  attempts 
of  the  Judaizers  to  impose  this  rite  upon  the  Gentile  converts  ;  in  which 
he  was  supported  by  the  decision  of  the  Holy  Spirit  when  the  appeal 

2 


618  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

upon  this  question  was  made  to  "the  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem," 
from  the  Church  at  Antioch,  At  the  same  time  it  is  clear  that  he  takes 
two  different  views  of  the  practice  of  circumcision,  as  it  was  continued 
among  many  of  the  first  Christians.  The  first  is  that  strong  one  which 
is  expressed  in  Gal.  v,  2-4,  "  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye 
be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing ;  for  I  testify  again  to 
every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law. 
Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by 
the  law,  ye  are  fallen  from  grace."  The  second  is  that  milder  view 
which  he  himself  must  have  had  when  he  circumcised  Timothy  to  ren- 
der  him  more  acceptable  to  the  Jews  ;  and  which  also  appears  to  have 
led  him  to  abstain  from  all  allusion  to  this  practice  when  writing  his 
epistle  to  the  believing  Hebrews',  although  many,  perhaps  most  of  them, 
continued  to  circumcise  their  children,  as  did  the  Jewish  Christians  for 
a  long  time  afterward.  These  different  views  of  circumcision,  held  by 
the  same  person,  may  be  explained  by  considering  the  different  princi- 
ples on  which  circumcision  might  be  practised  after  it  had  become  an 
obsolete  ordinance. 

1.  It  might  be  taken  in  the  simple  view  of  its  first  institution,  as  the 
sign  and  seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant ;  and  then  it  was  to  be  con- 
demned as  involving  a  denial  that  Abraham's  seed,  the  Christ,  had 
already  come,  since,  upon  his  coming,  every  old  covenant  gave  place  to 
the  new  covenant  introduced  by  him. 

2.  It  might  be  practised  and  enjoined  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  the 
Mosaic  covenant,  which  was  still  the  Abrahamic  covenant  with  its 
spiritual  blessings,  but  with  restriction  of  its  temporal  promises  and 
special  ecclesiastical  privileges  to  the  line  of  Jacob,  with  a  law  of 
observances  which  was  obligatory  upon  all  entering  that  covenant  by 
circumcision.  In  that  case  it  involved,  in  like  manner,  the  notion  of 
the  continuance  of  an  old  covenant,  after  the  establishment  of  the  new ; 
for  thus  St.  Paul  states  the  case  in  Gal.  iii,  19,  "  Wherefore  then  serveth 
the  law  ?  It  was  added  because  of  transgressions  until  the  seed  should 
come."  After  that  therefore  it  had  no  effect : — it  had  waxed  old,  and 
had  vanished  away. 

3.  Again :  Circumcision  might  imply  an  obligation  to  observe  all 
the  ceremonial  usages  and  the  moral  precepts  of  the  Mosaic  law,  along 
with  a  general  belief  in  the  mission  of  Christ,  as  necessary  to  justifica- 
tion  betbre  God.  This  appears  to  have  been  the  view  of  those  among 
the  Galatian  Christians  who  submitted  to  circumcision,  and  of  the  Jew- 
ish  teachers  who  enjoined  it  upon  them ;  for  St.  Paul  in  that  epistle 
constantly  joins  circumcision  with  legal  observances,  and  as  involving 
an  obligation  to  do  "  the  whole  law,"  in  order  to  justification.  "  I  tes- 
tify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do 
THE  WHOLE  LAW ;  whosocvcr  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law,  ye  are 


I 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL     INSTITUTES.  619 

fallen  from  grace."  "  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  vxyrhs 
of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  Gal.  ii,  16.  To 
all  persons  therefore  practising  circumcision  in  this  view,  it  was  obvious 
that  "  Christ  was  become  of  none  effect,"  the  ver}^  principle  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith  alone  in  him  was  renounced,  even  while  his  Divine  mis- 
sion was  still  admitted. 

4.  But  there  are  two  grounds  on  which  circumcision  may  be  con- 
ceived to  have  been  innocently,  though  not  wisely,  practised  among  the 
Christian  Jews.  The  first  was  that  of  preserving  an  ancient  national 
distinction  on  which  they  valued  themselves ;  and  were  a  converted 
Jew  in  the  present  day  disposed  to  perform  that  rite  upon  his  children 
for  this  purpose  only,  renouncing  in  the  act  all  consideration  of  it  as  a 
sign  and  seal  of  the  old  covenants,  or  as  obliging  to  ceremonial  acts  in 
order  to  justification,  no  one  would  censure  him  with  severity.  It 
appears  clear  that  it  was  under  some  such  view  that  St.  Paul  circum- 
cised Timothy,  whose  mother  was  a  Jewess  ;  he  did  it  beca'ise  of  "  the 
Jews  which  were  in  those  quarters,"  that  is,  because  of  their  national 
prejudices,  "  for  they  knew  that  his  father  was  a  Greek."  The  second 
was  a  lingering  notion,  that,  even  in  the  Christian  Church,  the  Jews 
who  beheved  would  still  retain  some  degree  of  eminence,  some  superior 
relation  to  God  ;  a  notion  which,  however  unfounded,  was  not  one  which 
demanded  direct  rebuke,  when  it  did  not  proudly  refuse  spiritual  com- 
munion with  the  converted  Gentiles,  but  was  held  by  men  who  "  re- 
joiced that  God  had  granted  to  the  Gentiles  repentance  unto  life." 
These  considerations  may  account  for  the  silence  of  St.  Paul  on  the 
subject  of  circumcision  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Some  of  them 
continued  to  practise  that  rite,  but  they  were  probably  believers  of  the 
class  just  mentioned ;  for  had  he  thought  that  the  rite  was  continued 
among  them  on  any  principle  which  affected  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  he  would  no  doubt  have  been  equally  prompt  and  fear- 
less in  pointing  out  that  apostasy  from  Christ  which  was  implied  in  it, 
as  when  he  wrote  to  the  Galatians. 

Not  only  might  circumcision  be  practised  with  views  so  opposite  that 
one  might  be  wholly  innocent,  although  an  infirmity  of  prejudice ;  the 
other  such  as  would  involve  a  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  in  Christ ;  but  some  other  Jewish  observances  also  stood  in  the 
same  circumstances.  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  a  part 
of  his  writings  from  which  we  obtain  the  most  information  on  these 
questions,  grounds  his  "  doubts"  whether  the  members  of  that  Church 
were  not  seeking  to  be  "justified  by  the  law,"  upon  their  observing 
"  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years."  Had  he  done  more  than 
"  doubt,"  he  would  have  expressed  himself  more  positively.  He  saw 
their  danger  on  this  point ;  he  saw  that  they  were  taking  steps  to  this 
fetal  result,  by  such  an  observance  of  these  "  days,"  <S^c,  as  had  a  strong 


620  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

leaning  and  dangerous  approach  to  that  dependence  upon  them  for  justi- 
fication, which  would  destroy  their  faith  in  Christ's  solely  sufficient 
sacrifice  ;  but  his  very  doubting,  not  of  the  fact  of  their  being  addicted 
to  these  observances,  but  of  the  animus  with  which  they  regarded  them, 
supposes  it  possible,  however  dangerous  this  Jewish  conformity  might 
be,  that  they  might  be  observed  for  reasons  which  would  still  consist 
with  their  entire  rehance  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  for  salvation.  Even 
he  himself,  strongly  as  he  resisted  the  imposition  of  this  conformity  to 
Jewish  customs  upon  the  converts  to  Christianity  as  a  matter  of  neces- 
sity, yet  in  practice  must  have  conformed  to  many  of  them,  when  no 
sacrifice  of  principle  was  understood ;  for,  in  order  to  gain  the  Jews,  he 
became  "  as  a  Jew." 

From  these  observations,  which  have  been  somewhat  digressive,  we 
return  to  observe  that  not  only  was  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  of  which 
circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal,  a  covenant  of  grace,  but  that  when 
this  covenant  in  its  ancient  form  was  done  away  in  Christ,  then  the  old 
sign  and  seal  peculiar  to  that  form  was  by  consequence  abolished.  If 
then  baptism  be  not  the  initiatory  sign  and  seal  of  the  same  covenant  in 
its  new  and  perfect  form,  as  circumcision  was  of  the  old,  this  new 
covenant  has  no  such  initiatory  rite  or  sacrament  at  all ;  since  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  not  initiatory,  but,  like  the  sacrifices  of  old,  is  of  regular  and 
habitual  observance.  Several  passages  of  Scripture,  and  the  very 
nature  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  will,  however,  show  that  baptism  is 
to  the  new  covenant  what  circumcision  was  to  the  old,  and  took  its 
place  by  the  appointment  of  Christ. 

This  may  be  argued  from  our  Lord's  commission  to  his  apostles, 
"  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,"  Matt,  xxviii,  19, 
20.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature  ; 
he  that  belie veth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  Mark  xvi,  15,  16. 

To  understand  the  force  of  these  words  of  our  Lord,  it  must  be 
observed,  that  the  gate  of  "  the  common  salvation"  was  only  now  for 
the  first  time  going  to  be  opened  to  the  Gentile  nations.  He  himself 
had  declared  that  in  his  personal  ministry  he  was  not  sent  but  to  "  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ;"  and  he  had  restricted  his  disciples 
in  like  manner,  not  only  from  ministering  to  the  Gentiles,  but  from 
entering  any  city  of  the  Samaritans.  By  what  means  therefore  were 
"  all  nations"  now  to  be  brought  into  the  Church  of  God,  which  from 
henceforth  was  most  truly  to  be  catholic  or  universal?  Plainly,  by 
baptizing  them  that  believed  the  "  good  news,"  and  accepted  the  terms 
of  the  new  covenant.  This  is  apparent  from  the  very  words  ;  and  thus 
was  baptism  expressly  made  the  initiatory  rite,  by  which  believers  of 
"  all  nations"  were  to  be  introduced  into  the  Church  and  covenant  of 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES,  621 

grace  ;  an  office  in  which  it  manifestly  took  the  place  of  circumcision, 
which  heretofore,  even  from  the  time  of  Abraham,  had  been  the  only 
initiatory  rite  into  the  same  covenant.  Moses  re-enacted  circumcision  ; 
our  Lord  not  only  does  not  re-enact  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  appoints 
another  mode  of  entrance  into  the  covenant  in  its  new  and  perfected 
form,  and  that  so  expressly  as  to  amount  to  a  formal  abrogation  of  the 
ancient  sign,  and  the  putting  of  baptism  in  its  place.  The  same  argu- 
ment may  be  maintained  from  the  words  of  our  Lord  to  Nicodemus, 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."  By  the  kingdom  of  God,  our  Lord,  no  doubt,  in 
the  highest  sense,  means  the  future  state  of  fehcity ;  but  he  uses  this 
phrase  to  express  the  state  of  his  Church  on  earth,  which  is  the  gate  to 
that  celestial  kingdom ;  and  generally  indeed  speaks  of  his  Church  on 
earth  under  this  mode  of  expression,  rather  than  of  the  heavenly  state. 
If  then  he  declares  that  no  one  can  "  enfer"  into  that  Church  but  by 
being  "  born  of  water  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  which  heavenly  gift  fol- 
lowed upon  baptism  when  received  in  true  faith,  he  clearly  makes 
baptism  the  mode  of  initiation  into  his  Church  in  this  passage  as  in  the 
last  quoted ;  and  in  both  he  assigns  to  it  the  same  office  as  circumcision 
in  the  Church  of  the  Old  Testament,  whether  in  its  patriarchal  or  3Io- 
saic  form. 

A  farther  proof  that  baptism  has  precisely  the  same  federal  and 
initiatory  character  as  circumcision,  and  that  it  was  instituted  for  the 
same  ends,  and  in  its  place,  is  found  in  Colossians  ii,  10-12,  "  And  ye 
are  complete  in  him,  which  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and  power ; 
in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision 
of  Christy  buried  with  him  in  baptism,^^  &c.  Here  baptism  is  also  made 
the  initiatory  rite  of  the  new  dispensation,  that  by  which  the  Colossians 
were  joined  to  Christ  in  whom  they  are  said  to  be  "  complete ;"  and  so 
certain  is  it  that  baptism  has  the  same  office  and  import  now  as  circum- 
cision formerly, — with  this  difference  only,  that  the  object  of  faith  was 
then  future,  and  now  it  is  Christ  as  come. — that  the  apostle  expressly 
calls  baptism  "  the  circumcision  of  Christ^  the  circumcision  instituted 
by  him,  which  phrase  he  puts  out  of  the  reach  of  frivolous  criticism,  by 
adding  exegetically, — "  buried  with  him  in  haptism.'^^  For  unless  the 
apostle  here  calls  baptism  "  the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  he  asserts  that 
we  "  put  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  that  is,  become  new 
creatures  by  virtue  of  our  Lord's  own  personal  circumcision  ;  but  if  this 
be  absurd,  then  the  only  reason  for  which  he  can  call  baptism  "  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian  circumcision,  is,  that  it  has  taken 
the  place  of  the  Abrahamic  circumcision,  and  fulfils  the  same  office  of 
introducing  believing  men  into  God's  covenant,  and  entitling  them  to  the 
enjoyment  of  spiritual  blessings. 

2 


622  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

But  let  us  also  quote  Gal.  iii,  27-29,  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ ;  there  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Gentile,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female, 
for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus ;  and  if  ye  are  Christ's,"  by  thus 
being  "baptized,''^  and  by  ^^ putting  on''^  Christ,  "then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

The  argument  here  is  also  decisive.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  it  was 
by  circumcision  beUevingly  submitted  to,  that  "  strangers"  or  heathens, 
as  well  as  Jews,  became  the  spiritual  "  seed  of  Abraham,"  and  "  heirs" 
of  the  same  spiritual  and  heavenly  '^  promises. ^^  But  the  same  office  in 
this  passage  is  ascribed  to  baptism  also  believingly  submitted  to  ;  and  the 
conclusion  is  therefore  ine\itable.  The  same  covenant  character  of 
each  rite  is  here  also  strongly  marked,  as  well  as  that  the  covenant  is 
the  same,  although  under  a  different  mode  of  administration.  In  no  other 
way  could  circumcision  avail  any  thing  under  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
than  as  it  was  that  visible  act  by  which  God's  covenant  to  justify  men 
by  faith  in  the  promised  seed  was  accepted  by  them.  It  was  therefore 
a  part  of  a  federal  transaction ;  that  outward  act  which  he  who  offered 
a  covenant  engagement  so  gracious  required  as  a  solemn  declaration  of 
the  acceptance  of  the  covenanted  grace  upon  the  covenanted  conditions. 
It  was  thus  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  offered  to  the  acceptance 
of  all  who  heard  it,  and  thus  that  they  were  to  declare  their  acceptance 
of  it.  In  the  same  manner  there  is  a  standing  offer  of  the  same  cove- 
nant of  mercy  wherever  the  Gospel  is  preached.  The  "  good  news" 
which  it  contains  is  that  of  a  promise,  an  engagement,  a  covenant  on  the 
part  of  God  to  remit  sin,  and  to  save  all  that  beheve  in  Christ.  To  the 
covenant  in  this  new  form  he  also  requires  a  visible  and  formal  act  of 
acceptance,  which  act  when  expressive  of  the  required  faith  makes  us 
parties  to  the  covenant,  and  entitles  us  through  the  faithfulness  of  God 
to  its  benefits.  "  He  that  helievet/i  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;"  or,  as 
in  the  passage  before  us,  "  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ ;  and  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

We  have  the  same  view  of  baptism  as  an  act  of  covenant  acceptance, 
and  as  it  relates  to  God's  gracious  engagement  to  justify  the  ungodly  by 
faith  in  his  Son,  in  the  often-quoted  passage  in  1  Peter  iii,  20,  "  Which 
sometime  were  disobedient,  when  once  the  long  suffering  of  God  waited 
in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is, 
eight  souls  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even  bap- 
tism ioth  also  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,)  by  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ." 

When  St.  Peter  calls  baptism  the  "  figure,"  avT»<ru'7r'ov,  the  antitype  of 
the  transaction  by  which  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  from  perishing 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  623 

with  the  ungodly  and  unbelieving  world,  he  had  doubtless  in  mind  the 
faith  of  Noah,  and  that  under  the  same  view  as  the  Apostle  Paul,  in 
Heb.  xi,  "  By  faith  Noah,  being  warned  of  God  of  things  not  seen  as 
yet,  moved  with  fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his  house ;  by 
the  which"  act  of  faith  "  he  condemned  the  world,  and  became  heir  of 
the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith ;"  an  expression  of  the  same  import  as 
if  he  had  said,  "  by  which  act  of  faith  he  was  justified  before  God."  It 
has  been  already  explained  in  another  place  (Part  ii,  chap,  xxii,  p.  171) 
in  what  way  Noah's  preparing  of  the  ark,  and  his  faith  in  the  Divine  pro- 
mise of  preservation,  were  indicative  of  his  having  that  direct  faith  in 
the  Christ  to  come,  of  which  the  Apostle  Paul  discourses  in  the  eleventh 
of  the  Hebrews,  as  that  which  characterized  "  all  the  elders,"  and  by 
which  they  obtained  their  "  good  report"  in  the  Church.  His  preserva- 
tion and  that  of  his  family  was  so  involved  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  more 
ancient  promise  respecting  the  seed  of  the  woman,  and  the  deliverance 
of  man  from  the  power  of  Satan,  that  we  are  warranted  to  conclude  that 
his  faith  in  the  promise  respecting  his  own  deliverance  from  the  deluge, 
was  supported  by  his  faith  in  that  greater  promise,  which  must  have 
fallen  to  the  ground  had  the  whole  race  perished  without  exception. 
His  building  of  the  ark,  and  entering  into  it  with  his  family,  are  therefore 
considered  by  St.  Paul  as  the  visible  expression  of  his  faith  in  the  an- 
cient promises  of  God  respecting  Messiah ;  and  for  this  reason  baptism 
is  called  by  St.  Peter,  without  any  allegory  at  all,  but  in  the  sobriety  of 
fact  "  the  antitype'''  of  this  transaction  ;  the  one  exactly  answering  to  the 
other,  as  an  external  expression  of  faith  in  the  same  objects  and  the  same 
promises. 

But  the  apostle  does  not  rest  in  this  general  representation.  He 
proceeds  to  express  in  a  particular  and  most  forcible  manner,  the  nature 
of  Christian  baptism, — "  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh  ; 
but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,  by  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ."  Now,  whether  we  take  the  word  scrspwri^iuLa,  rendered  in 
our  translation  "  answer,"  for  a  demand  or  requirement ;  or  for  the  an- 
swer to  a  question  or  questions  ;  or  in  the  sense  of  stipulation  ;  the  gene- 
ral import  of  the  passage  is  nearly  the  same.  If  the  first,  then  the 
meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  baptism  is  not  the  putting  away  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,  not  a  mere  external  ceremony ;  but  a  rite  which  demands 
or  requires  something  of  us,  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  a  "good  con- 
science." What  that  is,  we  learn  from  the  words  of  our  Lord  :  it  is 
faith  in  Christ ;  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;" 
which  faith  is  the  reliance  of  a  penitent  upon  the  atonement  of 
the  Saviour,  who  thus  submits  with  all  gratitude  and  truth  to  the 
terms  of  the  evangelical  covenant.  If  we  take  the  second  sense,  we 
must  lay  aside  the  notion  of  some  lexicographers  and  commentators, 
who  think  that  tliere  is  an  allusion  to  the  ancient  practice  of  demanding 

2 


624  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  the  candidates  for  baptism  whether  they  renounced  their  sins,  and  the 
service  of  Satan,  with  other  questions  of  the  same  import ;  for,  ancient 
as  these  questions  may  be,  they  are  probably  not  so  ancient  as  the  time 
of  the  apostle.  We  know,  however,  from  the  instance  of  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  that  there  was  an  explicit  requirement  o^  faith,  and  as  explicit 
an  answer  or  confession:  "And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all 
thy  heart,  thou  mayest ;  and  he  answered,  I  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God."  Every  administration  of  baptism  indeed  implied  this  de- 
mand ;  and  baptism,  if  we  understand  St.  Peter  to  refer  to  this  circum- 
stance, was  such  an  "  answer"  to  the  interrogations  of  the  administrator, 
as  expressed  a  true  and  evangelical  faith.  If  we  take  the  third  render- 
ing of  *'  stipulation,"  which  has  less  to  support  it  critically  than  either 
of  the  others,  still  as  the  profession  of  faith  was  a  condition  of  baptism, 
that  profession  had  the  full  force  of  a  formal  stipulation,  since  all  true  faith 
in  Christ  requires  an  entire  subjection  to  him  as  Lord,  as  well  as 
Saviour. 

Upon  this  passage,  however,  a  somewhat  clearer  light  may  be  thrown, 
by  understanding  the  word  STrspwrrifxa  in  the  sense  of  that  which  asksj 
requiresj  seeks,  something  beyond  itself.  The  verb  from  which  it  is 
derived  signifies  to  ask  or  require  ;  but  S'T'Spwrrjixa  occurs  nowhere  else 
in  the  New  Testament ;  and  but  once  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy, 
Dan.  iv,  17,  where,  however,  it  is  used  so  as  to  be  fully  illustrative  of 
the  meaning  of  St.  Peter.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  to  be  humbled  by  being 
driven  from  men  to  associate  with  the  beasts  of  the  field  ;  and  the  vision 
in  which  this  was  represented  concludes,  "  This  matter  is  by  the  decree 
of  the  watchers,  and  the  demand,  to  S'Ti'spwTTjfxa,  by  the  word  of  the  Holy 
Ones,  to  the  intent  that  the  living  may  know,  jva  ^vw(j'»v  oi  ^wvtsj,  that  the 
Most  High  ruleth  in  the  kingdom  of  men."  The  Chaldaic  word,  like 
the  Greek,  is  from  a  word  which  signifies  to  ask,  to  require,  and  may  be 
equally  expressed  by  the  v^orApetitio,  which  is  the  rendering  of  the  Vul- 
gate, or  by  postulatum.  There  was  an  end,  an  "  intent,"  for  which  the 
humbhng  of  the  Babylonian  king  was  required  "  by  the  word  of  the  Holy 
Ones"  that,  by  the  signal  punishment  of  the  greatest  earthly  monarch, 
"  the  living  might  know  that  the  Most  High  ruleth  in  the  kingdom  of  men." 
In  like  manner  baptism  has  an  end,  an  "intent,"  "  not  the  putting  away  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,"  but  obtaining  "a  good  conscience  toward  God:"  and 
it  requires,  claims  this  good  conscience  through  that  faith  in  Christ 
whereof  cometh  remission  of  sins,  the  cleansing  of  the  "  conscience 
from  dead  works,"  and  those  supplies  of  supernatural  aid  by  which,  in 
future,  men  may  "  live  in  all  good  conscience  before  God."  It  is  thus 
that  we  see  how  St.  Peter  preserves  the  correspondence  between  the 
act  of  Noah  in  preparing  the  ark  as  an  act  of  faith  by  which  he  was 
justified,  and  the  act  of  submitting  to  Christian  baptism,  which  is  also 
obviously  an  act  of  faith,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  or  the  obtaining 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  625 

a  good  conscience  before  God.  This  is  farther  strengthened  by  his  im- 
mediately  adding,  "  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ :"  a  clause  which 
our  translators  by  the  use  of  a  parenthesis,  connect  with  "  baptism  doth 
also  now  save  us ;"  so  that  their  meaning  is,  we  are  saved  by  baptism 
through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  as  he  "  rose  again  for  our 
justification,"  this  sufficiently  shows  the  true  sense  of  the  apostle,  who, 
by  our  being  "  saved,"  clearly  means  our  being  justified  by  faith. 

The  text  however  needs  no  parenthesis,  and  the  true  sense  may  be  thus 
expressed  :  "  The  antitype  to  which  water  of  the  flood,  baptism,  doth 
now  save  us  ;  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  that  which 
intently  seeks  a  good  conscience  toward  God,  through  faith  in  the  resur- 
rection  of  Jesus  Christ."  But  however  a  particular  word  may  be  dis- 
posed  of,  the  whole  passage  can  only  be  consistently  taken  to  teach  us 
that  baptism  is  the  outward  sign  of  our  entrance  into  God's  covenant  of 
mercy  ;  and  that  when  it  is  an  act  of  true  faith,  it  becomes  an  instru- 
ment of  salvation,  like  that  act  of  faith  in  Noah,  by  which,  when  moved 
with  fear,  he  "  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his  house,"  and  survived 
the  destruction  of  an  unbeheving  world. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  will  then  follow,  that  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant and  the  Christian  covenant  is  the  same  gracious  engagement  on  the 
part  of  God  to  show  mercy  to  man,  and  to  bestow  upon  him  eternal  life, 
through  faith  in  Christ  as  the  true  sacrifice  for  sin,  differing  only  in  cir- 
cumstances ;  and  that  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  this  covenant  under  the 
old  dispensation  was  circumcision,  under  the  new  it  is  baptism,  which 
has  the  same  federal  character,  performs  the  same  initiatory  office,  and 
is  instituted  by  the  same  authority.  For  none  could  have  authority  to 
lay  aside  the  appointed  seal,  but  the  being  who  first  instituted  it,  who 
changed  the  form  of  the  covenant  itself,  and  who  has  in  fact  abrogated 
the  old  seal  by  the  appointment  of  another,  even  baptism,  which  is  made 
obligatory  upon  "  all  nations  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached,  and  is" 
to  continue  to  "  the  end  of  the  world." 

This  argument  is  sufficiently  extended  to  show  that  the  Antipaedobap- 
tist  writers  have  in  vain  endeavoured  to  prove  that  baptism  has  not  been 
appointed  in  the  room  of  circumcision  ;  a  point  on  which,  indeed,  they 
were  bound  to  employ  all  their  strength  ;  for  the  substitution  of  baptism 
for  circumcision  being  estabhshed,  one  of  their  main  objections  to  infant 
baptism,  as  we  shall  just  now  show,  is  rendered  wholly  nugatory. 

But  it  is  not  enough,  in  stating  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism,  to  consider  it  generally  as  an  act  by  which  man  enters  into 
God's  covenant  of  grace.  Under  this  general  view  several  particulars 
are  contained,  which  it  is  of  great  importance  rightly  to  understand.  Bap- 
tism, both  as  a  sign  and  seal  presents  an  entire  correspondence  with 
the  ancient  rite  of  circumcision.     Let  it  then  be  considered, — 

1.  As  A  SIGN.     Under  this  view,  circumcision  indicated,  by  a  visible 
Vol.  II.  40 


626  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  continued  rite,  the  placability  of  God  toward  his  sinful  creatures ; 
and  held  out  the  promise  of  justification,  by  faith  alone,  to  every  truly 
penitent  offender.  It  went  farther,  and  was  the  sign  of  sanctification, 
or  the  taking  away  the  pollution  of  sin,  "  the  superfluity  of  naughtiness," 
as  well  as  the  pardon  of  actual  offences,  and  thus  was  the  visible  em- 
blem of  a  regenerate  mind,  and  a  renewed  hfe.  This  will  appear  from 
the  following  passages  :  "  For  he  is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly 
in  the  flesh ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly ;  and  circumcision 
is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is 
not  of  men,  but  of  God,"  Rom.  ii,  28.  "  And  the  Lord  thy  God  will 
circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live," 
Deut.  XXX,  6.  "  Circumcise  yourselves  to  the  Lord,  and  take  away  the 
foreskins  of  your  heart,  ye  men  of  Judah,  and  inhabitants  of  Jerusa^ 
lem,"  Jer.  iv,  3.  It  was  the  sign  also  of  peculiar  relation  to  God,  as 
his  people  :  "  Only  the  Lord  had  a  delight  in  thy  fathers  to  love  them, 
and  he  chose  their  seed  after  them,  even  you  above  all  people,  as  it  is 
this  day.  Circumcise,  therefore,  the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  and  be 
no  more  stiff  necked,"  Deut.  x,  15,  16. 

In  all  these  respects,  baptism,  as  a  sign  of  the  new  covenant,  corres- 
ponds  to  circumcision.  Like  that,  its  administration  is  a  constant  exhi- 
bition of  the  placability  of  God  to  man  ;  hke  that,  it  is  the  initiatory  rite 
into  a  covenant  which  promises  pardon  and  salvation  to  a  true  faith,  of 
which  it  is  the  outward  profession ;  like  that,  it  is  the  symbol  of  rege- 
neration, the  washing  away  of  sin,  and  "  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;"  and  like  that,  it  is  a  sign  of  pecuUar  relation  to  God,  Christians 
becoming,  in  consequence,  "  a  chosen  generation,  a  peculiar  people," — 
his  "  Church^''  on  earth,  as  distinguished  from  "  the  world."  "  For  we," 
says  the  apostle,  "  are  the  circumcision,"  we  are  that  peculiar  people 
and  Church  now,  which  was  formerly  distinguished  by  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, "  who  worship  God  in  the  spirit,  and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus, 
and  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh." 

But  as  a  sign  baptism  is  more  than  circumcision ;  because  the  cove- 
nant, under  its  new  dispensation,  was  not  only  to  offer  pardon  upon 
believing,  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  fleshly  appetites,  and  a  pecu- 
liar spiritual  relation  to  God,  all  which  we  find  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  but  also  to  bestow  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  his  fulness,  upon  all  be- 
lievers ;  and  of  this  effusion  of  "  the  power  from  on  high,"  baptism  was 
made  the  visiMe  sign ;  and  perhaps  for  this,  among  some  other  obvious 
reasons,  was  substituted  for  circumcision,  because  baptism  by  effusion, 
or  pouring,  (the  New  Testament  mode  of  baptizing,  as  we  shall  after- 
ward show,)  was  a  natural  symbol  of  this  heavenly  gift.  The  baptism 
of  John  had  special  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  not  to  be 
administered  bv  him,  but  by  Christ,  who  should  come  after  him.  This 
2 


roURTH.J  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  627 

gift  only  honoured  John's  baptism  once,  in  the  extraordinary  case  of  our 
JiOrd ;  but  it  constantly  followed  upon  the  baptism  administered  by  the 
apostles  of  Christ,  after  his  ascension,  and  "  the  sending  of  the  promise 
of  the  Father."  Tiien  Peter  said  unto  them,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  sliall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost"  Acts  ii,  17.  "According  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghosty 
which  he  s/ie</,"  or  poured  out,  "  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus 
Christ."  For  this  reason  Christianity  is  called  "  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit ;"  and  so  far  is  this  from  being  confined  to  the  miraculous  gifts 
often  bestowed  in  the  first  age  of  the  Church,  that  it  is  made  the  stand- 
ing and  prominent  test  of  true  Christianity  to  "  be  Ited  l^  the  Spirit," — 
"If  ANY  MAN  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his."  Of  this 
great  new  covenant  blessing,  baptism  was  therefore  eminently  the  sign ; 
and  it  represented  "  tlie  pouring  out"  of  the  Spirit,  "  the  descending"  of 
the  Spirit,  the  "  falling"  of  the  Spirit  «  upon  men,"  by  the  mode  in  which 
it  was  administered,  the  pouring  of  water  from  above  upon  the  sub- 
jects baptized. 

As  a  SEAL  also,  or  cm  firming  sign,  baptism  answers  to  circumcision. 
JBy  the  institution  of  the  latter,  a  pledge  was  constantly  given  by  the 
Almighty  to  bestow  the  spiritual  blessings  of  which  the  rite  was  the 
sign,  pardon  and  sanctiftcation  through  faith  in  the  future  seed  of  Abra- 
ham ;  pecuHar  relation  to  Him  as  "  his  people ;"  and  the  heavenly 
inheritance.  Of  the  same  blessings,  baptism  is  also  the  pledge,  along 
with  that  higher  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  it  specially  repre- 
sents in  emblem.  Thus  in  baptism  there  is  on  the  part  of  God  a  visible 
assurance  of  his  faithfulness  to  his  covenant  stipuiations.  But  it  is  our 
seal  also  ;  it  is  that  act  by  which  we  make  ourselves  parties  to  the  cove- 
nant, and  thus  "  set  to  our  seal,  that  God  is  true."  In  this  respect  it 
binds  us,  as,  in  the  other,  God  mercifully  binds  himself  for  the  stronger 
assurance  of  our  faith.  We  pledge  ourselves  to  trust  wholly  in  Christ 
for  pardon  and  salvation,  and  to  obey  his  laws  ; — "  teaching  them  '  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :' "  in  that  rite 
also  we  undergo  a  mystical  death  unto  sin,  a  mystical  separation  from 
the  world,  which  St.  Paul  calls  being  "  buried  with  Christ  in  or  by  bap- 
tism ;"  and  a  mystical  resurrection  to  newness  of  life,  through  Christ's 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  Thus  in  circumcision,  an  obligation  of  faith 
in  the  promises  made  to  Abraham,  and  an  obligation  to  holiness  of  life, 
and  to  the  observance  of  the  Divine  laws,  was  contracted ;  and  Moses, 
therefore,  in  a  passage  above  quoted,  argues  from  that  peculiar  visible 
relation  of  the  Israelites  to  God,  produced  by  outward  circumcision,  to 
the  duty  of  circumcising  the  heart :  "  The  Lord  had  a  delight  in  thy  fathers 
to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  after  them,  even  you  above  all  peo- 
ple ;  circumcise  therefore  the  foreskin  of  your  heart,"  Deut.  x,  15. 


628  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

If  then  we  bring  all  these  considerations  under  one  view,  we  shall 
find  it  sufficiently  established  that  baptism  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  under  its  perfected  dispensation ; — that  it  is  the  grand 
initiatory  act  by  which  we  enter  into  this  covenant,  in  order  to  claim  all 
its  spiritual  blessings,  and  to  take  upon  ourselves  all  its  obhgations ; — 
that  it  was  appointed  by  Jesus  Christ  in  a  manner  wliich  plainly  put  it 
in  the  place  of  circumcision ; — that  it  is  now  the  means  by  which  men 
become  Abraham's  spiritual  children,  and  heirs  with  him  of  the  promise, 
which  was  the  office  of  circumcision,  until  "the  seed,"  the  Messiah, 
should  come ; — and  that  baptism  is  therefore  expressly  called  by  St. 
Paul,  "the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian  circumcision,  in  a 
sense  which  can  only  import  that  baptism  has  now  taken  the  place  of 
the  Abrahamic  rite. 

The  only  objection  of  any  plausibility  which  has  been  urged  by  An- 
tipaedbbaptist  writers  against  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision, 
i«  thus  stated  by  Mr.  Booth  :  "  If  baptism  succeeded  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, how  came  it  that  both  of  them  were  in  full  force  at  the  same 
time,  that  is,  from  the  commencement  of  John's  ministry  to  the  death  of 
Christ  ?  For  one  thing  to  come  in  the  room  of  another,  and  the  latter 
to  hold  its  place,  is  an  odd  kind  of  succession.  Admitting  the  succes- 
sion  pretended,  how  came  it  that  Paul  circumcised  Timothy,  after  he 
had  been  baptized  ?"  That  circumcision  was  practised  along  with  bap- 
tism  from  John  the  Baptist's  ministry  to  the  death  of  Christ  may  be  very 
readily  granted,  without  affecting  the  question ;  for  baptism  could  not 
be  made  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  perfected  covenant  of  grace,  until  that 
covenant  was  both  perfected,  and  fully  explained  and  proposed  for  ac- 
ceptance, which  did  not  take  place  until  after  "  the  blood  of  the  ever- 
lasting covenant"  was  shed,  and  our  Lord  had  opened  its  full  import  to 
the  apostles  who  were  to  publish  it  "to  all  nations"  after  his  resurrec- 
tion. Accordingly  we  find  that  baptism  was  formally  made  the  rite  of 
initiation  into  this  covenaiit  for  the  first  time,  when  our  Lord  gave  com- 
mission to  his  disciples  to  "  go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost," — "he 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  John's  baptism  was  upon 
profession  of  repentance,  and  faith  in  the  speedy  appearance  of  Him 
who  was  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  fire ;  and  our  Lord's 
baptism  by  his  disciples  was  administered  to  those  Jews  that  believed  on 
himi  as  the  Messias,  all  of  whom,  like  the  apostles,  waited  for  a  fuller 
developement  of  his  character  and  offices.  For  since  the  new  covenant 
was  not  then  fully  perfected,  it  could  not  be  proposed  in  any  other  way 
than  to  prepare  them  that  beUeved  in  Christ,  by  its  partial  but  increasing 
manifestation  in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  for  the  full  declaration  both 
of  its  benefits  and  obhgations ;  which  declaration  was  not  made  until 
after  his  resurrection.     Whatever  the  nature  and  intent  of  that  baptism 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES,  629 

which  our  Lord  by  his  disciples  administered,  might  be,  (a  point  on 
which  we  have  no  information,)  like  that  of  John,  it  looked  to  something 
yet  to  come,  and  was  not  certainly  that  baptism  in  the  name  "  of  the 
Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  was  afterward  insti- 
tuted as  the  standing  initiatory  rite  into  tlic  Christian  Church.  As  for 
the  circumcision  of  Timothy,  and  the  practice  of  that  rite  among  many 
of  the  Hebrew  believers,  it  has  already  been  accounted  for.  If  indeed 
the  Baptist  writers  could  show  that  the  apostles  sanctioned  the  practice 
of  circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  old  covenant,  either  as  it  was  Abra- 
hamic  or  Mosaic,  or  both,  then  there  would  be  some  force  in  the  argu- 
ment,  that  one  could  not  succeed  the  other,  if  both  were  continued 
under  inspired  authority.  But  we  have  the  most  decided  testimony  of 
the  Apostle  Paul  against  any  such  use  of  circumcision ;  and  he  makes 
it,  when  practised  in  that  view,  a  total  abnegation  of  Christ  and  the 
new  covenant.  It  follows  then,  that,  when  circumcision  was  continued 
by  any  connivance  of  the  apostles, — and  certainly  they  did  no  more 
than  connive  at  it, — it  was  practised  upon  some  grounds  which  did  not 
regard  it  as  the  seal  of  any  covenant,  from  national  custom,  or  preju- 
dice, a  feeling  to  which  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  yielded  in  the  case  of 
Timothy.  He  circunx^ised  him,  but  not  from  any  conviction  of  necessity, 
since  he  uniformly  declared  circumcision  to  have  vanished  away  with 
that  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  which  it  was  the  seal  through  the 
bringing  in  of  a  better  hope. 

We  may  here  add,  that  an  early  father,  Justin  Martyr,  takes  the 
same  view  of  the  substitution  of  circumcision  by  Christian  baptism  : 
"  We,  Gentiles,"  Justin  observes,  "  have  not  received  that  circumcision 
according  to  the  flesh,  but  that  which  is  spiritual — and  moreover,  for 
indeed  we  were  sinners,  we  have  received  this  in  baptis?n,  through  God's 
mercy,  and  it  is  enjoined  on  all  to  receive  it  in  like  manner." 

II.  The  nature  of  baptism  having  been  thus  explained,  we  may  pro- 
ceed  to  consider  its  subjects. 

That  believers  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  as  tliey  were  of 
circumcision,  is  beyond  dispute.  As  it  would  have  been  a  monstrous 
perversion  of  circumcision  to  have  administered  it  to  any  person,  being 
of  adult  age,  who  did  not  believe  in  the  true  and  living  God,  and  in  the 
expected  "  seed  of  Abraham,"  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed ; 
so  is  faith  in  Christ  also  an  indispensable  condition  for  baptism  m  all 
persons  of  mature  age ;  and  no  minister  is  at  liberty  to  take  from  the 
candidate  the  visible  pledge  of  his  acceptance  of  the  terms  of  God's 
covenant,  unless  he  has  been  first  taught  its  nature,  promises,  and  obli- 
gations,  and  gives  sufficient  evidence  of  the  reality  of  his  faith,  and  the 
sincerity  of  his  profession  of  obedience.  Hence  the  administration  of 
baptism  was  placed  by  our  Lord  only  in  the  hands  of  those  who  were 
♦•  to  preach  the  Gospel,"  that  is,  of  those  who  were  to  declare  God's 

2 


THEOI4OGICAL     INSTITUTES.  [PART 

iQethod  of  saving  men  "through  faith  in  Christ,"  and  to  teach  them 
"  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  Christ  had  commanded  them."  Cir= 
cgpicision  was  connected  with  teaching,  and  belief  of  the  truth  taught ; 
and  so  also  is  Christian  baptism. 

The  question,  however,  which  now  requires  consideration  is,  whether 
ijie  infant  children  of  believing  parents  are  entitled  to  be  made  parties 
to  the  covenant  of  grace,  by  the  act  of  their  parents,  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  ? 

In  favour  of  infant  baptism,  the  following  arguments  may  be  adduced. 
Sonie  of  them  are  more  direct  than  others ;  but  the  reader  will  judge 
whether,  taken  all  together,  they  do  not  establish  this  practice  of  the 
Church,  continued  to  us  from  the  earliest  ages,  upon  the  strongest  basis 
of  Scriptural  authority. 

1.  As  it  has  been  established,  that  baptism  was  put  by  our  Lord  him- 
self and  his  apostles  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  as  an  initiatory  rite 
into  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  and  as  the  infant  children  of  believers 
under  the  Old  Testament  were  entitled  to  the  covenant  benefits  of  the 
latter  ordinance,  and  the  children  of  Christian  behevers  are  not  ex- 
pressly excluded  from  entering  into  the  same  covenant  by  baptism ;  the 
absei\ce  of  such  an  explicit  exclusion  is  sufficient  proof  of  their  title  to 
baptism. 

for  if  the  covenant  be  the  same  in  all  its  spiritual  blessings,  and  an 
express  change  was  made  by  our  Lord  in  the  sign  and  seal  of  that 
covenant,  but  no  change  at  all  in  the  subjects  of  it,  no  one  can  have  a 
right  to  carry  that  change  farther  than  the  Lawgiver  himself,  and  to 
exclude  the  children  of  behevers  from  entering  his  covenant  by  baptism, 
when  they  had  always  been  entitled  to  enter  into  it  by  circumcision.  This 
is  a  censurable  interference  with  the  authority  of  God  ;  a  presumptuous 
attempt  to  fashion  the  new  dispensation  in  this  respect  so  as  to  conform 
it  to  a  mere  human  opinion  of  fitness  and  propriety.  For  to  say,  that, 
because  baptism  is  directed  to  be  administered  to  believers  when  adults 
are  spoken  of,  it  follows  that  children  who  are  not  capable  of  personal 
faith  are  excluded  from  baptism,  is  only  to  argue  in  the  same  manner 
as  if  it  were  contended,  that,  because  circumcision,  when  adults  were 
the  subjects,  was  only  to  be  administered  to  believers,  therefore  infants 
were  excluded  from  that  ordinance,  which  is  contrary  to  the  fact.  This 
argument  will  not  certainly  exclude  them  from  baptism  by  way  of  infer- 
ence, and  by  no  act  of  the  Maker  and  Mediator  of  the  covenant  are  they 
shut  out. 

2.  If  it  had  been  intended  to  exclude  infants  from  entering  into  the 
new  covenant  by  baptism,  the  absence  of  every  prohibitory  expression 
to  this  effect  in  the  New  Testament,  must  have  been  misleading  to  all 
men  ;  and  especially  to  the  Jewish  believers. 

jBaptism  was  no  new  ordinance  when  our  Lord  instituted  it,  though  he 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  G31 

gave  to  it  a  particular  designation.  It  was  in  his  practice  to  adapt,  in 
several  instances,  what  he  found  already  established,  to  the  uses  of  his 
religion.  "  A  parable,  for  instance,  was  a  Jewish  mode  of  teaching. — 
Who  taught  by  parables  equal  to  Jesus  Christ  ?  And  what  is  the  most 
distinguished  and  appropriate  rite  of  his  religion,  but  a  service  grafted 
on  a  passover  custom  among  the  Jews  of  his  day  ?  It  was  not  ordained 
by  Moses,  that  a  part  of  the  bread  they  had  used  in  the  passover  should 
be  the  last  thing  they  ate  after  that  supper  ;  yet  this  our  Lord  took  as  he 
found  it,  and  converted  it  into  a  memorial  of  his  body.  The  '  cup  of 
blessing'  has  no  authority  whatever  from  the  original  institution;  yet 
this  our  Lord  found  in  use,  and  adopted  as  a  memorial  of  his  blood : — 
taken  together,  these  elements  form  one  commemoration  of  his  death. 
Probability,  arising  to  rational  certainty,  therefore,  would  lead  us  to 
infer,  that  whatever  rite  Jesus  appointed  as  the  ordinance  of  admission 
into  the  community  of  his  followers,  he  would  also  adopt  from  some  ser- 
vice already  existing — from  some  token  familiar  among  the  people  of 
his  nation. 

"  In  fact,  we  know  that  *  divers  haptisms*  existed  under  the  law,  and 
we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  that  the  admission  of  proselytes  into 
the  profession  of  Judaism,  was  really  "and  truly  marked  by  a  washing 
with  water  in  a  ritual  and  ceremonial  manner.  I  have  always  understood 
that  Maimonides  is  perfectly  correct  when  he  says,  '  In  all  ages,  when  a 
heathen  (or  a  stranger  by  nation)  was  willing  to  enter  into  the  covenant 
of  Israel,  and  gather  himself  under  the  wings  of  the  majesty  of  God, 
and  take  upon  himself  tJie  yoke  of  the  law — he  must  he  first  circumcised, 
and  secondly  baptized,  and  thirdly,  bring  a  sacrifice ;  or  if  the  parly 
were  a  woman,  then  she  must  he  first  baptized,  and  secondly  bring  a 
sacrifice.''  He  adds,  '  At  this  present  time  when  (the  temple  being  de- 
stroyed) there  is  no  sacrificing,  a  stranger  must  he  first  circumcised,  and 
secondly  baptized.' 

"  Dr.  Gill,  indeed,  in  his  Dissertation  on  Jewish  Proselyte  Baptism, 
has  ventured  the  assertion,  that  '  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  rite 
or  custom  of  admitting  Jewish  proselytes  by  baptism,  in  any  writings  or 
records  before  the  time  of  John  the  Baptist,  Christ  and  his  apostles ; 
nor  in  any  age  after  them,  for  the  first  three  or  four  hundred  years  ;  or, 
however,  before  the  writing  of  the  Talmuds.^  But  the  learned  doctor 
has  not  condescended  to  understand  the  evidence  of  this  fact.  It  does 
not  rest  on  the  testimony  of  Jewish  records  solely  ;  it  was  in  circulation 
among  the  heathen,  as  we  learn  from  the  clear  and  demonstrative  tes- 
timony of  Epictetus,  who  has  these  words  :  (he  is  blaming  those  who 
assume  the  profession  of  philosophy  without  acting  up  to  it :)  '  Why  do 
you  call  yourself  a  Stoic  ?  Why  do  you  deceive  the  multitude  ?  Why 
do  you  pretend  to  be  a  Greek  when  you  are  a  Jew  ?  a  Syrian  ?  an 
Egyptian  7     And  when  we  see  any  one  wavering,  we  are  wont  to  say, 

2 


632  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

This  is  not  a  Jew.  but  acis  one.  But  when  he  assumes  the  sentiments 
of  one  who  hath  been  baptized  and  circumcised^  then  he  both  really  is, 
and  is  called  a  Jew.  Thus  we,  falsifying  our  profession,  are  Jews  in 
name,  but  in  reality  something  else.' 

"  This  practice  then  of  the  Jews, — proselyte  baptism — was  so  noto- 
rious to  the  heathen  in  Italy  and  in  Greece,  that  it  furnished  this  philoso- 
pher with  an  object  of  comparison.  Now,  Epictetus  lived  to  be  very 
old  :  he  is  placed  by  Dr.  Lardner,  A.  D.  109,  by  Le  Clerc,  A.  D.  104, 
He  could  not  be  less  than  sixty  years  of  age  when  he  wrote  this ;  and 
he  might  obtain  his  information  thirty  or  forty  years  earlier,  which 
brings,  it  up  to  the  time  of  the  apostles.  Those  who  could  think  that 
the  Jews  could  institute  proselyte  baptism  at  the  very  moment  when  the 
Christians  were  practising  baptism  as  an  initiatory  rite,  are  not  to  be 
envied  for  the  correctness  of  their  judgment.  The  rite  certainly  dates 
much  earher,  probably  many  ages.  I  see  no  reason  for  disputing  the  asser- 
tion of  Maimonides,  notwithstanding  Dr.  Gill's  rash  and  fallacious  Ian- 
guage  on  the  subject."  {Facts  and  Evidences  on  the  Subject  of  Baptism.) 

This  baptism  of  proselytes,  as  Lightfoot  has  fully  showed,  was  a  bap- 
tism  of  families,  and  comprehended  their  infant  children ;  and  the  rite 
was  a  symbol  of  their  being  washed  from  the  pollution  of  idolatry. 
Very  different  indeed  in  the  extent  of  its  import  and  office  was  Chris- 
tian baptism  to  the  Jewish  baptisms;  nevertheless,  this  shows  that 
the  Jews  were  familiar  with  the  rite  as  it  extended  to  children,  in  cases 
of  conversions  from  idolatry ;  and,  as  far  at  least  as  the  converts  from 
paganism  to  Christianity  were  concerned,  they  could  not  but  understand 
Christian  baptism  to  extend  to  the  infant  children  of  Gentile  proselytes, 
unless  there  had  been,  what  we  nowhere  find  in  the  discourses  of 
Christ  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  an  express  exception  of  them. — - 
In  like  manner,  their  own  practice  of  infant  circumcision  must  have 
misled  them  ;  for  if  they  were  taught  that  baptism  was  the  initiatory 
seal  of  the  Christian  covenant,  and  had  taken  the  place  of  circumcision, 
which  St.  Paul  had  informed  them  was  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
which  is  by  faith,"  how  should  they  have  understood  that  their  children 
were  no  longer  to  be  taken  into  covenant  with  God,  as  under  their  own 
former  religion,  unless  they  had  been  told  that  this  exclusion  of  children 
from  all  covenant  relation  to  God,  was  one  of  those  peculiarities  of  the 
Christian  dispensation  in  which  it  differed  from  the  religion  of  the 
patriarchs  and  Moses  ?  This  was  surely  a  great  change ;  a  change 
which  must  have  made  great  impression  upon  a  serious  and  affectionate 
Jewish  parent,  who  could  now  no  longer  covenant  with  God  for  his 
children,  or  place  his  children  in  a  special  covenant  relation  to  the  Lord 
of  the  whole  earth  ;  a  change  indeed  so  great, — a  placing  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Christian  parents  in  so  inferior,  and,  so  to  speak,  outcast  a  con- 
dition, in  comparison  of  the  children  of  believing  Jews,  while  the 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES  G33 

Abrahamic  covenant  remained  in  force, — that  not  only,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent  mistake,  did  it  require  an  express  enunciation,  but  in  the  nature  of 
the  thing  it  must  have  given  rise  to  so  many  objections,  or  at  least 
inquiries,  that  explanations  of  the  reason  of  this  peculiarity  might 
naturally  be  expected  to  occur  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  and  espe- 
cially in  those  of  St.  Paul.  On  the  contrary,  the  very  phraseology  of 
these  inspired  men,  when  touching  the  subject  of  the  children  of  believ- 
ers only  incidentally,  was  calculated  to  confirm  the  ancient  practice,  in 
opposition  to  what  we  are  told  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  upon 
this  point.  For  instance  :  how  could  the  Jews  have  understood  the 
words  of  Peter  at  the  pentecost,  but  as  calling  both  upon  them  and  their 
children,  to  be  baptized  ? — "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  for  the  promise 
is  unto  you  and  to  your  children."  For  that  both  are  included,  may  be 
proved,  says  a  sensible  writer,  by  considering, 

"  1.  The  resemblance  between  this  promise,  and  that  in  Gen.  xvii,  7, 
*  To  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  unto  thy  seed  after  thee.'  The  resem- 
blance between  these  two  lies  in  two  things  :  (1.)  Each  stands  con- 
nected with  an  ordinance,  by  which  persons  were  to  be  admitted  into 
Church  fellowship;  the  one  by  circumcision,  the  other  by  baptism. 
(2.)  Both  agree  in  phraseology ;  the  one  is,  '  to  thee  and  thy  seed  ;' 
the  other  is,  '  to  you  and  your  children.'  Now,  every  one  knows  that 
the  word  seed  means  children ;  and  that  children  means  seed ;  and 
that  they  are  precisely  the  same.  From  these  two  strongly  resembling 
features,  viz.  their  connection  with  a  similar  ordinance,  and  the  same- 
ness of  the  phraseology,  I  infer,  that  the  subjects  expressed  in  each 
are  the  very  same.  And  as  it  is  certain  that  parents  and  infants  were 
intended  by  the  one ;  it  must  be  equally  certain  that  both  arc  intended 
by  the  other. 

"  2.  The  sense  in  which  the  speaker  must  have  understood  the  sen- 
tence  in  question  :  '  The  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children.'  In 
order  to  know  this,  we  must  consider  who  the  speaker  was,  and  from 
what  source  he  received  his  religious  knowledge.  The  apostle  was  a 
Jew.  He  knew  that  he  himself  had  been  admitted  in  infancy,  and  that 
it  was  the  ordinary  practice  of  the  Church  to  admit  infants  to  member- 
ship.  And  he  likewise  knew,  that  in  this  they  acted  on  the  authority 
of  that  place,  where  God  promises  to  Abraham,  '  to  be  a  God  unto  him, 
and  unto  his  seed.'  Now;  if  the  apostle  knew  all  this,  in  what  sense 
could  he  understand  the  term  children,  as  distinguished  from  their 
parents  ?  I  have  said  that  Tsxva,  children,  and  rfffS^jna,  seed,  mean  the 
same  thing.  And  as  the  apostle  well  knew  that  the  term  seed  intended 
infants,  though  not  mere  infants  only ;  and  that  mfants  were  circum- 
cised and  received  into  the  Church  as  being  the  seed,  what  else  could 
he  understand  by  the  term  children^  when  mentioned  with  their  parents? 
Those  who  will  have  the  apostle  to  mean,  by  the  term  children  '■  adult 

2 


634  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

posterity'  only,  have  this  infehcity  attending  them,  that  they  under= 
stand  the  term  differently  from  all  other  men  ;  and  they  attribute  to  the 
apostle  a  sense  of  the  word  which  to  him  must  have  been  the  most 
forced  and  infamiliar. 

«  3.  In  what  sense  his  hearers  must  have  understood  him,  when  he 
said,  '  The  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children.' 

"  The  context  informs  us,  that  many  of  St.  Peter's  hearers,  as  he 
himself  was,  were  Jews.  They  had  been  accustomed  for  many  hun- 
dred years  to  receive  infants  by  circumcision  into  the  Church  ;  and  this 
they  did,  as  before  observed,  because  God  had  promised  to  be  a  God  to 
Abraham  and  to  his  seed.  They  had  understood  this  promise  to  mean 
parents  and  their  infant  offspring,  and  this  idea  was  become  familiar  by 
the  practice  of  many  centuries.  What  then  must  have  been  their  views, 
when  one  of  their  own  community  says  to  them, '  The  promise  is  to  you 
and  to  your  children  V  If  their  practice  of  receiving  infants  was  founded 
on  a  promise  exactly  similar,  as  it  was,  how  could  they  possibly  under- 
stand him,  but  as  meaning  the  same  thing,  since  he  himself  used  the 
same  mode  of  speech  ?  This  must  have  been  the  case,  unless  we  admit 
this  absurdity,  that  they  understood  him  in  a  sense  to  which  they  had 
never  been  accustomed. 

"  How  idle  a  thing  it  is,  in  a  Baptist,  to  come  with  a  lexicon  in  his 
hand,  to  inform  us  that  rsxva,  children,  means  posterity !  Certainly  it 
does,  and  so  includes  the  youngest  infants. 

"  But  the  Baptists  will  have  it,  that  rsxva,  children,  in  this  place,  means 
only  adidt  posterity.  And  if  so,  the  Jews  to  whom  he  spoke,  unless  they 
understood  St.  Peter  in  a  way  in  which  it  was  morally  impossible  they 
should,  would  infallibly  have  understood  him  wrong.  Certainly,  all  men, 
when  acting  freely,  will  understand  words  in  that  way  which  is  most 
familiar  to  them  ;  and  nothing  could  be  more  so  to  the  Jews,  than  to 
understand  such  a  speech  as  Peter's  to  mean  adults  and  infants. 

"  We  should  more  certainly  come  at  the  truth,  if,  instead  of  idly  cri- 
ticising, we  could  fancy  ourselves  Jews,  and  in  the  habit  of  circumcising 
infants,  and  receiving  them  into  the  Church ;  and  then  could  we  ima- 
gine one  of  our  own  nation  and  religion  to  address  us  in  the  very  lan- 
guage of  Peter  in  this  text,  '  The  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children ;' 
let  us  ask  ourselves  whether  we  could  ever  suppose  him  to  mean  adult 
posterity  only!"  (Edwards on  Baptism.) 

To  this  we  may  add  that  St.  Paul  calls  the  children  of  believers  holpf 
separated  to  God,  and  standing  therefore  in  a  peculiar  relation  to  him, 
1  Cor.  vii,  14 ;  a  mode  of  speech  which  would  also  have  been  wholly 
unintelligible  at  least  to  a  Jew,  unless  by  some  rite  of  Christianity  chil- 
dren were  made  sharers  in  its  covenanted  mercies. 

Tlie  practice  of  the  Jews,  and  the  very  language  of  the  apostles,  so 
laaturally  leading  therefore  to  a  misunderstanding  of  this  sacrament,  if 
2  " 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  G35 

infant  baptism  be  not  a  Christian  rite,  and  that  in  respect  of  its  subjects 
themselves,  it  was  the  more  necessary  that  some  notice  of  the  exclusion 
of  infants  from  the  Christian  covenant  should  have  been  given  by  way 
of  guard.  And  as  we  find  no  intimation  of  this  prohibitory  kind,  we 
may  confidently  conclude  that  it  was  never  the  design  of  Christ  to  re- 
strict this  ordinance  to  adults  only. 

3.  Infant  children  are  declared  by  Christ  to  be  members  of  his 
Church. 

That  they  were  made  members  of  God's  Church  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham, and  among  the  Jews,  cannot  be  denied.  They  were  made  so  by 
circumcision,  which  was  not  that  carnal  and  merely  political  rite  which 
many  Baptist  writers  in  contradiction  to  the  Scriptures  make  it,  but  was, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  seal  of  a  spiritual  covenant,  comprehending  engage- 
ments  to  bestow  the  remission  of  sins  and  all  its  consequent  blessings  in 
this  life,  and,  in  another,  the  heavenly  Canaan.  Among  these  blessings 
was  that  special  relation,  which  consisted  in  becoming  a  visible  and  pe- 
culiar people  of  God,  his  Church.  This  was  contained  in  that  engage- 
ment of  the  covenant,  "  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to 
me  a  people  ;"  a  promise,  which,  however  connected  with  temporal  ad- 
vantages, was,  in  its  highest  and  most  emphatic  sense,  wholly  spiritual. 
Circumcision  was  therefore  a  religious,  and  not  a  mere  political  rite, 
because  the  covenant,  of  which  it  was  the  seal,  was  in  its  most  ample 
sense  spiritual.  If  therefore  we  had  no  direct  authority  from  the  words 
of  Christ  to  declare  the  infant  children  of  behevers  competent  to  become 
the  members  of  his  Church,  the  two  circumstances, — that  the  Church 
of  God,  which  has  always  been  one  Church  in  all  ages,  and  into  which 
the  Gentiles  are  now  introduced,  formerly  admitted  infants  to  member- 
ship by  circumcision, — and  that  the  mode  of  initiation  into  it  only  has 
been  changed,  and  not  the  subjects,  (of  which  we  have  no  intimation,) 
would  themselves  prove  that  baptism  admits  into  the  Christian  Church 
both  belie\ing  parents  and  their  children,  as  circumcision  admitted  both. 
The  same  Church  remains  ;  for  "  the  olive  tree"  is  not  destroyed  ;  the 
natural  branches  only  are  broken  oflT,  and  the  Gentiles  graflfed  in,  and 
"partake  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree,"  that  is,  of  all  the  spi- 
ritual blessings  and  privileges  heretofore  enjoyed  by  the  Jews,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  relation  to  God  as  his  Church.  But  among  these  spiritual 
privileges  and  blessings,  was  the  right  of  placing  their  children  in  cove- 
nant with  God  ;  the  membership  of  the  Jews  comprehended  both  children 
and  adults ;  and  the  graffing  in  of  the  Gentiles,  so  as  to  partake  of  the 
same  "  root  and  fatness,"  will  therefore  include  a  right  to  put  their  chil- 
dren also  into  the  covenant,  so  that  they  as  well  as  adults  may  become 
members  of  Christ's  Church,  have  God  to  be  "  their  God,"  and  be  ac- 
knovvledged  by  him,  in  the  special  sense  of  the  terms  of  the  covenant, 
to  be  his  "  people." 


636  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

But  we  have  our  Lord's  direct  testimony  to  this  point,  and  that  in  two 
remarkable  passages,  Luke  ix,  47,  48,  "  And  Jesus  took  a  child  and  set 
him  by  him,  and  he  said  unto  them,  Whosoever  shall  receive  this  child 
in  my  name,  receiveth  me  ;  and  whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth 
him  that  sent  me  ;  for  he  that  is  least  among  you  all,  the  same  shall  be 
great."  We  grant  that  this  is  an  instance  of  teaching  by  parabolic  ac 
tion.  The  intention  of  Christ  was  to  impress  the  necessity  of  humility 
and  teachableness  upon  his  disciples,  and  to  afford  a  promise,  to  those 
who  should  receive  them  in  his  name,  of  that  special  grace  which  was 
implied  in  receiving  himself.  But  then,  were  there  not  a  correspond- 
ence of  circumstances  between  the  child  taken  by  Jesus  in  his  arms, 
and  the  disciples  compared  to  this  child,  there  would  be  no  force,  no  pro- 
priety,  in  the  action,  and  the  same  truth  might  have  been  as  forcibly 
stated  without  any  action  of  this  kind  at  all.  Let  then  these  correspond- 
ences  be  remarked  in  order  to  estimate  the  amount  of  their  meaning. 
The  humihty  and  docility  of  the  true  disciple  corresponded  with  the 
same  dispositions  in  a  young  child  ;  and  the  "  receiving  a  disciple  in  the 
name^^  of  Christ  corresponds  with  the  receiving  of  a  child  in  tJie  name 
of  Christ,  which  can  only  mean  the  receiving  of  each  with  kindness,  on 
account  of  a  religious  relation  between  each  and  Christ,  which  religious 
relation  can  only  be  well  interpreted  of  a  Church  relation.  This  is  far- 
ther confirmed  by  the  next  point  of  correspondence,  the  identity  of  Christ 
both  with  the  disciple  and  the  child,  "  Whosoever  shall  receive  this  child 
in  my  name  receiveth  me ;"  but  such  an  identity  of  Christ  with  his  disci- 
ple stands  wholly  upon  their  relation  to  him  as  members  of  his  mystical 
"  body,  the  Church."  It  is  in  this  respect  only  that  they  are  "  one  with 
him ;"  and  there  can  be  no  identity  of  Christ  with  "little  children"  but 
by  virtue  of  the  same  relation,  that  is,  as  they  are  members  of  his  mys- 
tical body,  the  Church  ;  of  which  membership,  baptism  is  now,  as  cir- 
cumcision was  then,  the  initiatory  rite.  That  was  the  relation  in  which 
4he  very  child  he  then  took  up  in  his  arms  stood  to  him  by  virtue  of  its 
.circumcision  ;  it  was  a  member  of  his  Old  Testament  Church  ;  but,  as 
he  is  speaking  of  the  disciples  as  the  future  teachers  of  his  perfected 
covenant,  and  their  reception  in  his  name  under  that  character,  he 
manifestly  glances  at  the  Church  relationship  of  children  to  him  to 
be  established  by  the  baptism  to  be  instituted  in  his  perfect  dispensa- 
tion. 

This  is,  however,  expressed  still  more  explicitly  in  Mark  x,  14,  "  But 
when  Jesus  saw  it  he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them.  Suffer 
the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is 

the  kingdom  of  God  : ^and  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands 

upon  them,  and  blessed  them."  Here  the  children  spoken  of  are  "  little 
children,"  of  so  tender  an  age,  that  our  Lord  "  took  them  up  in  his  arms." 
The  purpose  for  which  they  were  brought  was  not^  as  some  of  the  Bap- 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  637 

list  writers  would  suggest,  that  Christ  sliould  heal  them  ot^  diseases ;  for 
though  St.  Mark  says,  "They  brought  young  children  to  Christ  that  he 
might  touch  them,"  this  is  explained  by  St.  Matthew,  who  says,  "  that 
he  should  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  pray ;"  and  even  in  the  state- 
ment of  St.  Mark  x,  16,  it  is  not  said  that  our  Lord  healed  them,  but 
"  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them ;"  which  clearly  enough 
shows  that  this  was  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  brought  by  their 
parents  to  Christ.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  tliat  it  was  the  practice 
among  the  Jews,  for  common  unofficial  persons  to  put  their  hands  upon 
the  heads  of  those  for  whom  they  prayed.  The  parents  here  appear  to 
have  been  among  those  who  believed  Christ  to  be  a  prophet,  "  tJial  Pro- 
phet,''^ or  the  Messias ;  and  on  that  account  earnestly  desired  his  prayers 
for  their  children,  and  his  official  blessing  upon  them.  That  official 
blessing, — the  blessing  which  he  was  authorized  and  empowered  to  be- 
stow by  virtue  of  his  Messiahship, — he  was  so  ready,  we  might  say  so 
anxious,  to  bestow  upon  them,  that  he  was  "  much  displeased''''  with  his 
disciples  who  "  rebuked  them  that  brought  them,"  and  gave  a  command 
which  was  to  be  in  force  in  all  future  time, — "  Suffiir  the  little  children 
to  come  unto  me,"  in  order  to  receive  my  official  blessing  ;  "  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  first  evasive  criticism  of  the  Baptist 
writers  is,  that  the  phrase  "  of  such,"  means  of  such  like,  that  is,  of 
adults  being  of  a  child-like  disposition  ;  a  criticism  which  takes  away  all 
meaning  from  the  words  of  our  Lord.  For  what  kind  of  reason  was  it 
to  offer  for  permitting  children  to  come  to  Christ  to  receive  his  bless- 
ing, that  persons  not  children,  but  who  were  of  a  child-like  disposition, 
were  the  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  The  absurdity  of  this  is  its 
own  refutation,  since  the  reason  for  childi'en  being  permitted  to  come, 
must  be  found  in  themselves,  and  not  in  others.  The  second  attempt  to 
evade  the  argument  from  this  passage  is,  to  understiuid  "  the  kingdom 
of  God,"  or  "  the  Idngdom  of  heaven,"  as  St.  Matthew  has  it,  exclu- 
sively of  the  heavenly  state.  We  gladly  admit,  in  opposition  to  the  Cal- 
vinistic  Baptists,  that  all  children,  dying  before  actual  sin  committed,  are 
admitted  into  heaven  through  the  merits  of  Christ ;  but  for  this  very 
reason  it  follows  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  to  be  introduced  into 
his  Church  on  earth.  The  phrases,  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  "  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  are,  however,  more  frequently  used  by  our  Lord  to 
denote  the  Church  in  this  present  world,  than  in  its  state  of  glory  ;  and 
since  all  the  children  brought  to  Christ  to  receive  his  blessing  were  not 
likely  to  die  in  their  infancy,  it  could  not  be  affirmed,  that  "of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  if  that  be  understood  to  mean  the  state  of  fu- 
ture  happiness  exclusively.  As  children,  they  might  all  be  members 
of  the  Church  on  earth  ;  but  not  all  as  children,  members  of  the  Church 
in  heaven,  seeing  they  might  live  to  become  adult,  and  be  cast  away. 
Thus,  therefore,  if  children  are  expressly  declared  to  be  members  of 

2 


638  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Christ's  Church,  then  are  they  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  which  is  the 
initiatory  rite  into  every  portion  of  that  Church  which  is  visible. 
But  let  this  case  be  more  particularly  considered. 
Take  it  that  by  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  "  of  heaven,"  our  Lord 
means  the  glorified  state  of  his  Church  ;  it  must  be  granted  that  none 
can  enter  into  heaven  who  are  not  redeemed  by  Christ,  and  who  do  not 
stand  in  a  vital  relation  to  him  as  members  of  his  mystical  body,  or 
otherwise  we  should  place  human  and  fallen  beings  in  that  heavenly 
state  who  are  unconnected  with  Christ  as  their  Redeemer,  and  un- 
cleansed  by  him  as  the  sanctifier  of  his  redeemed.     Now,  this  relation 
must  exist  on  earth,  before  it  can  exist  in  heaven  ;  or  else  we  assign 
the  work  of  sanctifying  the  fallen  nature  of  man  to  a  future  state,  which 
is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures.     If  infants,  therefore,  are  thus  redeemed 
and  sanctified  in  their  nature,  and  are  before  death  made  "  meet  for  the 
inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light ;"  so  that  in  tliis  world  they  are  placed 
in  the  same  relation  to  Christ  as  an  adult  believer,  who  derives  sanctify- 
ing influence  from  him,  they  are  therefore  the  members  of  his  Church, 
— they  partake  the  grace  of  the  covenant,  and  are  comprehended  in 
that  promise  of  the  covenant,  "  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall 
be  to  me  a  people."    In  other  words,  they  are  made  members  of' Christ's 
Church,  and  are  entitled  to  be  recognized  as  such  by  the  administration 
of  the  visible  sign  of  initiation  into  some  visible  branch  of  it.     If  it 
be  asked,  "  Of  what  import  then  is  baptism  to  children,  if  as  infants  they 
already  stand  in  a  favourable  relation  to  Christ  f  the  answer  is,  that  it 
is  of  the  same  import  as  circumcision  was  to  Abraham,  which  was  "  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircum- 
cised :"  it  confirmed  all  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of  grace  to  him, 
and  made  the  Church  of  God  visible  to  men.     It  is  of  the  same  import 
as  baptism  to  the  eunuch,  who  had  faith  already,  and  a  wilhngness  to 
submit  to  the  rite  before  it  was  administered  to  him.     He  stood  at  that 
moment  in  the  condition,  not  of  a  candidate  for  introduction  into  the 
Church,  but  of  an  accepted  candidate ;  he  was  virtually  a  member, 
although  not  formally  so,  and  his  baptism  was  not  merely  a  sign  of  his 
faith,  but  a  confirming  sign  of  God's  covenant  relation  to  him  as  a  par- 
doned and  accepted  man,  and  gave  him  a  security  for  the  continuance 
and  increase  of  the  grace  of  the  covenant,  as  he  was  prepared  to  receive 
it.     In  like  manner,  in  the  case  of  all  truly  heliemng  adults  applying 
for  baptism,  their  relation  to  Christ  is  not  that  of  mere  candidates  for 
membership  with  his  Church,  but  that  of  accepted  candidates,  standing 
already  in  a  vital  relation  to  him,  but  about  to  receive  the  seal  which 
was  to  confirm  that  grace,  and  its  increase  in  the  ordinance  itself,  and 
m  future  time.     Thus  this  previous  relation  of  infants  to  Christ,  as  ac- 
cepted by  him,  is  an  argument  for  their  baptism,  not  against  it,  seeing 
it  is  by  that  they  are  visibly  recognized  as  the  formal  members:  of  his 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  639 

Church,  and  have  the  full  grace  of  the  covenant  confirmed  and  sealed 
to  them,  witli  increase  of  grace  as  they  are  fitted  to  receive  it,  beside 
the  advantage  of  visible  connection  with  the  Church,  and  of  that  obliga- 
tion  which  is  taken  upon  themselves  by  their  parents  to  train  them  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

In  both  views  then,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God," — members  of 
his  Church  on  earth,  and  of  his  Church  in  heaven,  if  they  die  in  infancy, 
for  the  one  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  other.  No  one  can  be  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  heaven,  who  does  not  stand  in  a  vital  sanctifying  re- 
lation  to  Christ  as  the  head  of  his  mystical  body,  the  Church,  on  earth  ; 
and  no  one  can  be  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  a  member  of  his 
true  Church,  and  die  in  that  relation,  without  entering  that  state  of  glory 
to  which  his  adoption  on  earth  makes  him  an  heir,  through  Christ. 

4.  The  argument  from  apostolic  practice  next  offers  itself.  ITiat 
practice  was  to  baptize  the  houses  of  them  that  believed. 

The  impugners  of  infant  baptism  are  pleased  to  argue  much  from  the 
absence  of  all  express  mention  of  the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  New 
Testament.  Tliis  however  is  easily  accounted  for,  when  it  is  consider- 
ed that  if,  as  we  have  proved,  baptism  took  the  place  of  circumcision, 
the  baptism  of  infants  was  so  much  a  matter  of  course,  as  to  call  for  no 
remark.  The  argument  from  silence  on  this  subject  is  one  which  least 
of  all  the  Baptists  ought  to  dwell  upon,  since,  as  we  have  seen,  if  it  had 
been  intended  to  exclude  children  from  the  privilege  of  being  placed 
in  covenant  with  God,  which  privilege  they  unquestionably  enjoyed 
under  the  Old  Testament,  this  extraordinary  alteration,  which  could  not 
but  produce  remark,  required  to  be  particularly  noted,  both  to  account 
for  it  to  the  mind  of  an  affectionate  Jewish  parent,  and  to  guard  against 
that  mistake  into  which  we  shall  just  now  show  Christians  from  the 
earliest  times  fell,  since  they  administered  baptism  to  infants.  It  may 
farther  be  observed,  that,  as  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  events  nar- 
rated there  did  not  require  the  express  mention  of  the  baptism  of  hifants, 
as  an  act  separate  from  the  baptism  of  adults.  That  which  called  for 
the  administration  of  baptism  at  that  period,  as  now,  when  the  Gospel 
is  preached  in  a  heathen  land,  was  the  believing  of  adult  persons,  not 
the  case  of  persons  already  believing,  bringing  their  children  for  bap- 
tism. On  the  supposition  that  baptism  was  administered  to  the  children 
of  the  parents  who  thus  beUevcd,  at  the  same  time  as  themselves,  and 
in  consequence  of  their  believing,  it  may  be  asked  how  the  fact  could 
be  more  naturally  expressed,  when  it  was  not  intended  to  speak  of  in- 
fant baptism  doctrinally  or  distinctly,  than  that  such  a  one  was  baptized, 
"  and  all  his  house ;"  just  as  a  similar  fact  would  be  distinctly  recorded 
by  a  modern  missionary  writing  to  a  Church  at  home  practising  infant 
baptism,  and  having  no  controversy  on  the  subject  in  his  eye,  by  saying 
that  he  baptized  such  a  heathen,  at  such  a  place,  with  all  his  family. 


640  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

For,  without  going  into  any  criticism  on  the  Greek  term  rendered 
house,  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  like  the  old  English  word  employed  in 
our  translation,  and  also  like  the  word  family,  it  must  be  understood  to 
comprehend  either  the  children  only,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  domestics, 
or  both. 

If  we  take  the  instances  of  the  baptism  of  whole  "  houses,"  as  record- 
ed in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  they  must  be  understood  as  marking  the 
common  mode  of  proceeding  among  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel 
when  the  head  or  heads  of  a  family  believed,  or  as  insulated  and  pecu- 
liar instances.  If  the  former,  which,  from  what  may  be  called  the 
matter-of-course  manner  in  which  the  cases  are  mentioned,  is  most  pro- 
bable, then  innumerable  instances  must  have  occurred  of  the  baptizing 
of  houses  or  families,  just  as  many  in  fact  as  there  were  of  the  conver- 
sion of  heads  of  famiHes  in  the  apostoHc  age.  That  the  majority  of 
these  houses  must  have  included  infant  children  is  therefore  certain,  and 
it  follows  that  the  apostles  practised  infant  baptism. 

But  let  the  cases  of  the  baptism  of  Jiouses  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament  be  put  in  the  most  favourable  light  for  the  purpose  of  the 
Baptists  ;  that  is,  let  them  be  considered  as  insulated  and  peculiar,  and 
not  instances  of  apostolic  procedure  in  all  cases  where  the  heads  of 
families  were  converted  to  the  faith,  still  the  Baptist  is  obliged  to  assume, 
that  neither  in  the  house  of  the  Philippian  jailer,  nor  in  that  of  Lydia, 
nor  in  that  of  Stephanas,  were  there  any  infants  at  all,  since,  if  there 
were,  they  were  comprehended  in  the  whole  houses  which  were  baptized 
upon  the  believing  of  their  respective  heads.  This  at  least  is  improba- 
ble, and  no  intimation  of  this  peculiarity  is  given  in  the  history. 

The  Baptist  writers,  however,  think  that  they  can  prove  that  all  the 
persons  included  in  these  houses  were  adults  ;  and  that  the  means  of 
showing  this  from  the  Scriptures  is  an  instance  of  "the  care  of  Providence 
watching  over  the  sacred  cause  of  adult  baptism ;"  thus  absurdly  as- 
suming that  even  if  this  point  could  be  made  out,  the  whole  controversy 
is  terminated,  when,  in  fact,  this  is  but  an  auxiliary  argument  of  very 
inferior  importance  to  those  above  mentioned.  But  let  us  examine  their 
supposed  proofs.  "  With  respect  to  the  jailer,"  they  tell  us  that  "  we 
are  expressly  assured,  that  the  apostles  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord  to 
all  that  were  in  his  house ;"  which  we  grant  must  principally,  although 
not  of  necessity  exclusively,  refer  to  those  who  were  of  sufficient  age  to 
understand  their  discourse.  And  "  that  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God 
with  all  his  house  ;"  from  which  the  inference  is,  that  none  but  adult 
hearers,  and  adult  believers,  were  in  this  case  baptized.  If  so,  then 
there  could  be  no  infant  children  in  the  house ;  which,  as  the  jailer  ap- 
pears from  his  activity  to  have  been  a  man  in  the  vigour  of  life,  and  not 
aged,  is  at  least  far  from  being  certain.  •  But  if  it  be  a  proof  in  this  case 
that  there  were  no  infant  children  in  the  jailer's  family,  that  it  is  said, 
2 


J 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  641 

he  believed  and  all  his  house ;  this  is  not  the  only  believing  family 
mentioned  in  Scripture  from  which  infants  must  be  excluded.  For,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  houses  of  Lydia  and  Stephanas,  the  nobleman  at  Ca- 
pernaum is  said  to  have  believed  "  and  all  his  house,^^  John  iv,  53  ;  so 
that  we  are  to  conclude  that  there  were  no  infant  children  in  this  house 
also,  although  his  sick  son  is  not  said  to  be  his  only  offspring,  and  that 
son  is  called  by  him  a  child,  the  diminutive  term  -aatSiov  being  used. 
Again,  Cornelius  is  said,  Acts  x,  2,  to  be  "  one  that  feared  God,  and 
all  his  house.^^  Infant  children  therefore  must  be  excluded  from  his 
family  also ;  and  also  from  that  of  Crispus,  who  is  said  to  have  "  be- 
lieved  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house  ;"  which  house  appears,  from  what 
immediately  follows,  to  have  been  baptized.  These  instances  make  it 
much  more  probable  that  the  phrases  "  fearing  God  with  all  his  house," 
and  "  believing  with  all  his  house,"  include  young  children  under  the 
believing  adults,  v/hose  religious  profession  they  would  follow,  and  whose 
sentiments  they  would  imbibe,  so  that  they  might  be  called  a  Christian 
family,  than  that  so  many  houses  or  families  should  have  been  consti- 
tuted only  of  adult  persons,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  children  of  tender 
yeaio'.  In  the  case  of  the  jailer's  house,  however,  the  Baptist  argument 
manifestly  halts ;  for  it  is  not  said,  that  they  only  to  whom  the  word  of 
the  Lord  was  spoken  were  baptized  ;  nor  that  they  only  who  "  believed" 
and  "  rejoiced"  with  the  jailer  were  baptized.  The  account  of  the  bap- 
tism is  given  in  a  separate  verse,  and  in  different  phrase  :  "  And  he 
took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes,  and 
was  baptized,  he,  and  all  his,^^  all  belonging  to  him,  "  straightway ;" 
where  there  is  no  limitation  of  the  persons  who  were  baptized  to  the 
adults  only  by  any  terms  which  designate  them  as  persons  "  hearing" 
or  "  believing." 

The  next  instance  is  that  of  Lydia.  The  words  of  the  writer  of  the 
Acts  are  "  Who  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  house.^^  The  great 
difficulty  with  the  Baptists  is,  to  make  a  house  for  Lydia  without  any 
children  at  all,  young  or  old.  This,  however,  cannot  be  proved  from 
the  term  itself,  since  the  same  word  is  that  commonly  used  in  the  Scrip- 
ture to  include  children  residing  at  home  with  their  parents :  "  One  that 
ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all 
gravity."  It  is  however  conjectured,  first,  that  she  had  come  a  trading 
voyage,  from  Thyatira  to  Philippi,  to  sell  purple  ;  as  if  a  woman  of 
Thyatira  might  not  be  settled  in  business  at  Philippi  as  a  seller  of  this 
article.  Then,  as  if  to  mark  more  strikingly  the  hopelessness  of  the 
attempt  to  torture  this  passage  to  favour  an  opinion,  '•  her  house"  is 
made  to  consist  of  journeymen  dyers,  "  employed  in  preparing  the  pur- 
ple she  sold  ;"  which,  however,  is  a  notion  at  variance  with  the  former; 
for  if  she  was  on  a  mere  trading  voyage,  if  she  had  brought  her  purple 
goods  from  Thyatira  to  Phihppi  to  sell,  she  most  probably  brought  them 

Vol.  II.  41 


642  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

ready  dyed,  and  would  have  no  need  of  a  dying  establishment.  To 
complete  the  whole,  these  journeymen  dyers,  although  not  a  word  is 
said  of  their  conversion,  nor  even  of  their  existence,  in  the  whole  story, 
are  raised  into  "  the  brethren,"  (a  term  which  manifestly  denotes  the 
members  of  the  PhiUppian  Church,)  whom  Paul  and  Silas  are  said  to 
have  seen  and  comforted  in  the  house  of  Lydia,  before  they  departed ! 

All,  however,  that  the  history  states  is,  that  "  the  Lord  opened  Lydia's 
heart,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul," 
and  that  she  was  therefore  "  baptized  and  her  house."  From  this  house 
no  one  has  the  least  authority  to  exclude  children,  even  young  children, 
since  there  is  nothing  in  the  history  to  warrant  the  above-mentioned 
conjectures,  and  the  word  is  in  Scripture  used  expressly  to  include 
them.  All  is  perfectly  gratuitous  on  the  part  of  the  Baptists;  but, 
while  there  is  nothing  to  sanction  the  manner  in  which  they  deal  with 
this  text,  there  is  a  circumstance  strongly  confirmatory  of  the  proba- 
bility  that  the  house  of  Lydia,  according  to  the  natural  import  of  the 
word  rendered  house  or  family,  contained  children,  and  that  in  an  infan- 
tile state.  This  is,  that  in  all  the  other  instances  in  which  adults  are 
mentioned  as  having  been  baptized  along  with  the  head  of  a  family, 
they  are  mentioned  as  "  hearing,"  and  "  beheving,"  or  in  some  terms 
which  amount  to  this.  CorneUus  had  called  together  "  his  kinsmen  and 
near  friends  ;"  and  while  Peter  spake,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them 
which  heard  the  word,^^  "  and  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized." 
So  the  adults  in  the  house  of  the  jailer  at  Phihppi  were  persons  to  whom 
*'  the  word  of  the  Lord"  was  spoken ;  and  although  nothing  is  said  of 
the  faith  of  any  but  the  jailer  himself, — for  the  words  are  more  properly 
rendered,  "  and  he,  believing  in  God,  rejoiced  with  all  his  house," — yet 
is  the  joy  which  appears  to  have  been  felt  by  the  adult  part  of  his  house, 
as  well  as  by  himself,  to  be  attributed  to  their  faith.  Now,  as  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  apostles,  although  they  baptized  infant  children, 
baptized  unbelieving  adult  servants  because  their  masters  or  mistresses 
believed,  and  yet  the  house  of  Lydia  were  baptized  along  with  herself, 
when  no  mention  at  all  is  made  of  the  Lord  "  opening  the  heart"  of 
these  adult  domestics,  nor  of  their  believing,  the  fair  inference  is,  that 
"  the  house"  of  Lydia  means  her  children  only,  and  that  being  of  imma- 
ture years  they  were  baptized  with  their  mother  according  to  the  com- 
mon custom  of  the  Jews,  to  baptize  the  children  of  proselyted  Gentiles 
along  with  their  parents,  from  which  practice  Christian  baptism  appears 
to  have  been  taken. 

The  third  instance  is  that  of  "  the  house  of  Stephanas,"  mentioned  by 
St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  i,  16,  as  having  been  baptized  by  himself.  This  family 
also,  it  is  argued,  must  have  been  all  adults,  because  they  are  said  in 
the  same  epistle,  chap,  xvi,  15,  to  have  "  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints,"  and  farther,  because  they  were  persons  who 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  643 

took  "a  lead^^  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  the  Corinthians  being 
exhorted  to  "  submit  themselves  unto  such,  and  to  every  one  that  helpeth 
with  us  and  laboureth."  To  understand  this  passage  rightly,  it  is  how- 
ever necessary  to  observe,  that  Stephanas,  the  head  of  this  family,  had 
been  sent  by  the  Church  of  Corinth  to  St.  Paul  at  Ephesus,  along  with 
Fortunatus  and  Achaicus.  In  the  absence  of  the  head  of  the  family, 
the  apostle  commends  "the  house,"  the  family  of  Stephanas  to  the 
regard  of  the  Corinthian  believers,  and  perhaps  also  the  houses  of  the 
two  other  brethren  who  had  come  with  him ;  for  in  several  ]MSS. 
marked  by  Griesbach,  and  in  some  of  the  versions,  the  text  reads,  "Ye 
know  the  house  of  Stephanas  and  Fortunatus,"  and  one  reads  also, 
"  and  of  Achaicus."  By  the  house  or  family  of  Stephanas,  the  apostle 
must  mean  his  children,  or,  along  with  them,  his  near  relations  dwelling 
together  in  the  same  family  ;  for,  since  they  are  commended  for  their 
hospitality  to  the  saints,  servants,  who  have  no  power  to  show  hospi- 
tality,  are  of  course  excluded.  But,  in  the  absence  of  the  head  of  the 
family,  it  is  very  improbable  that  the  apostle  should  exhort  the  Corin- 
thian Chufch  to  "  submit,"  ecclesiastically,  to  the  wife,  sons,  daughters, 
and  near  relations  of  Stephanas,  and,  if  the  reading  of  Griesbach's  MSS. 
be  followed,  to  the  family  of  Fortunatus,  and  that  of  Achaicus  also.  In 
respect  of  government,  therefore,  they  cannot  be  supposed  "  to  have  had 
a  lead  in  the  Church,"  according  to  the  Baptist  notion,  and  especially 
as  the  heads  of  these  families  were  absent.  They  were  however  the 
oldest  Christian  families  in  Corinth,  the  house  of  Stephanas  at  least 
being  called  "  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,"  and  eminently  distinguished 
for  "  addicting  themselves,"  setting  themselves  on  system,  to  the  work  of 
ministering  to  the  saints,  that  is,  of  communicating  to  the  poor  saints ; 
entertaining  stranger  Christians,  which  was  an  important  branch  of 
practical  duty  in  the  primitive  Church,  that  in  every  place  those  who 
professed  Christ  might  be  kept  out  of  the  society  of  idolaters;  and 
receiving  the  ministers  of  Christ.  On  these  accounts  the  apostle  com- 
mends them  to  the  special  regard  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  and  ex- 
horts "  iva  xai  ujxsrj  vitoradtfrid&s  toij  ToiXToif,  that  you  range  yourselves 
under  and  co-operate  with  them,  and  with  every  one,"  also,  "  who  help- 
eth with  us,  and  laboureth  ;"  the  military  metaphor  contained  in  STa^av 
in  the  preceding  verse  being  here  carried  forward.  These  families 
were  the  oldest  Christians  in  Corinth  ;  and  as  they  were  foremost  in 
every  good  word  and  work,  they  were  not  only  to  be  commended,  but 
the  rest  were  to  be  exhorted  to  serve  under  them  as  leaders  in  these 
works  of  charity.  This  appears  to  be  the  obvious  sense  of  this  other- 
wise  obscure  passage.  But  in  this,  or  indeed  in  any  other  sense  which 
can  be  given  to  it,  it  proves  no  more  than  that  there  were  adult  persons 
in  the  family  of  Stephanas,  his  wife,  and  sons,  and  daughters,  who  were 
distinguished  for  their  charity  and  hospitality.     Still  it  is  to  be  remem- 

2 


644  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

bered,  that  the  baptism  of  the  oldest  of  the  children  took  place  several 
years  before.  The  house  of  Stephanas  "  was  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia," 
in  which  St.  Paul  began  to  preach  not  later  than  A.  D.  51,  while  this 
epistle  could  not  be  written  earlier  at  least  than  A.  D.  57,  and  might  be 
later.  Six  or  eight  years,  taken  from  the  age  of  the  sons  and  daughters 
of  Stephanas,  might  bring  the  oldest  to  the  stale  of  early  youth,  and  as 
to  the  younger  branches  would  descend  to  the  term  of  infancy,  properly 
so  called.  Still  farther,  all  that  the  apostle  affirms  of  the  benevolence 
and  hospitality  of  the  family  of  Stephanas  is  perfectly  consistent  with  a 
part  of  his  children  being  still  very  young  when  he  wrote  the  epistle. 
An  equal  commendation  for  hospitality  and  charity  might  be  given  in 
the  present  day,  with  perfect  propriety,  to  many  pious  families,  several 
members  of  which  are  still  in  a  state  of  infancy.  It  was  sufficient  to 
warrant  the  use  of  such  expressions  as  those  of  the  apostle,  that  there 
were  in  these  Corinthian  families  a  few  adults,  whose  conduct  gave  a 
decided  character  to  the  whole  "house."  Thus  the  arguments  used  to 
prove  that  in  these  three  instances  of  family  baptism,  there  were  no 
young  children,  are  evidently  very  unsatisfactory ;  and  they  leave  us  to 
the  conclusion,  which  perhaps  all  would  come  to  in  reading  the  sacred 
history,  were  they  quite  free  from  the  bias  of  a  theory,  that  «  houses," 
or  "  famihes,"  as  in  the  commonly  received  import  of  the  term,  must  be 
understood  to  comprise  children  of  all  ages,  unless  some  explicit  note 
of  the  contrary  appears,  which  is  not  the  case  in  any  of  the  instances 
in  question. 

5.  The  last  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  antiquity  of  the  prac- 
tice of  infant  baptism. 

If  the  baptism  of  the  infant  children  of  believers  was  not  practised  by 
the  apostles  and  by  the  primitive  Churches,  when  and  where  did  the 
practice  commence  ?  To  this  question  the  Baptist  writers  can  give  no 
answer.  It  is  an  innovation,  according  to  them,  not  upon  the  circum. 
stances  of  a  sacrament,  but  upon  its  essential  principle ;  and  yet  its 
introduction  produced  no  struggle ;  was  never  noticed  by  any  general 
or  provincial  council ;  and  excited  no  controversy  !  This  itself  is  strong 
presumptive  proof  of  its  early  antiquity.  On  the  other  hand,  we  can 
point  out  the  only  ancient  writer  who  opposed  infant  baptism.  This 
was  Tertullian,  who  lived  late  in  the  second  century ;  but  his  very 
opposition  to  the  practice  proves,  that  that  practice  was  more  ancient 
than  himself;  and  the  principles  on  which  he  impugns  it,  farther  show 
that  it  was  so.  He  regarded  this  sacrament  superstitiously ;  he  ap- 
pended  to  it  the  trine  immersion  in  the  name  of  each  of  the  persons  of 
the  trinity ;  he  gives  it  gravely  as  a  reason  why  infants  should  not  be 
baptized,  that  Christ  says,  «  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me," 
therefore  they  must  stay  till  they  are  able  to  come,  that  is,  till  they 
are  grown  up ;   "  and  he  would  prohibit  the  unmarried,  and  all  in  a 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  645 

widowed  state,  from  baptism,  because  of  the  temptations  to  which  they 
may  be  Uable."  The  whole  of  this  is  solved  by  adverting  to  that  notion 
of  the  efficacy  of  this  sacrament  in  taking  away  all  previous  sins,  which 
then  began  to  prevail,  so  that  an  inducement  was  held  out  for  delaying 
baptism  as  long  as  possible,  till  at  length,  in  many  cases,  it  was  post- 
poned to  the  article  of  death,  under  the  belief  that  the  dying  who 
received  this  sacrament  were  the  more  secure  of  salvation.  Tertullian, 
accordingly,  with  all  his  zeal,  allowed  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized 
if  their  lives  be  in  danger,  and  thus  evidently  shows  that  his  opposition 
to  the  baptism  of  infants  in  ordinary,  rested  upon  a  very  different  prin- 
ciple from  that  of  the  modem  Antipocdobaptists.  Amidst  all  his  argu- 
ments against  this  practice,  Tertullian,  however,  never  ventures  upon 
one  which  would  have  been  most  to  his  purpose,  and  which  might  most 
forcibly  have  been  urged  had  not  baptism  been  administered  to  infants 
by  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  successors.  That  argument  would 
have  been  the  novelty  of  the  practice,  which  he  never  asserts,  and 
which,  as  he  lived  so  early,  he  might  have  proved,  had  he  had  any 
ground  for  it.  On  the  contrary,  Justin  Martyr,  and  Irenaeus,  in  the 
second  century,  and  Origen  in  the  beginning  of  the  third,  expressly 
mention  infant  baptism  as  the  practice  of  their  times,  and,  by  the  latter, 
this  is  assigned  to  apostolical  injunction.  Fidus,  an  African  bishop, 
applied  to  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  to  know,  not  whether  infants 
were  to  be  baptized,  but  whether  their  baptism  might  take  place  before 
the  eighth  day  after  their  birth,  that  being  the  day  on  which  circum- 
cision was  performed  by  the  law  of  Moses.  This  question  was  con- 
sidered in  an  African  synod,  held  A.  D.  254,  at  which  sixty-six  bishops 
were  present,  and  "  it  was  unanimously  decreed,  '  that  it  was  not  neces- 
sary to  defer  baptism  to  that  day  ;  and  that  the  grace  of  God,  or 
baptism,  should  be  given  to  all,  and  especially  to  infants.' "  This  deci- 
sion was  communicated  in  a  letter,  from  Cyprian  to  Fidus.  {Cyp.  Ep» 
59.)  We  trace  the  practice  also  downward.  In  the  fourth  century, 
Ambrose  says,  that  "  infants  who  are  baptized,  are  reformed  from  wick- 
edness to  the  primitive  state  of  their  nature ;"  {Comment,  in  Lucam, 
c.  10 ;)  and  at  the  end  of  that  century,  the  famous  controversy  took 
place  between  Augustine  and  Pelagius  concerning  original  sin,  in  which 
the  uniform  practice  of  baptizing  infants  from  the  days  of  the  apostles 
was  admitted  by  both  parties,  although  they  assigned  different  reasons 
for  it.  So  little  indeed  were  Tertullian's  absurdities  regarded,  thrt  he 
appears  to  have  been  quite  forgotten  by  this  time  ;  for  Augustine  says 
he  never  heard  of  any  Christian,  catholic  or  sectary,  who  taught  any 
other  doctrine  than  that  infants  are  to  be  baptized.  [De  Pecc.  Mor. 
cap.  6.)  Infant  baptism  is  not  mentioned  in  the  canons  of  any  council  ; 
nor  is  ii  insisted  upon  as  an  object  of  faith  in  any  creed  ;  and  thence 
we  infer  that  it  was  a  point  not  controverted  at  any  period  of  the  ancient 

3 


646  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Church,  and  we  know  that  it  was  the  practice  in  all  established 
Churches.  Wall  says,  that  Peter  Bruis,  a  Frenchman,  who  lived  about 
the  year  1030,  whose  followers  were  called  Petrobrussians,  was  the 
first  Antipaedobaptist  teacher  who  had  a  regular  congregation.  {Hist, 
part  2,  c.  7.)  The  Anabaptists  of  Germany  took  their  rise  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifteenth  century ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any 
congregation  of  Anabaptists  in  England,  till  the  year  1640.  {Bishop 
Tomline^s  Elements.)  That  a  practice  which  can  be  traced  up  to  the 
very  first  periods  of  the  Church,  and  has  been,  till  within  very  modem 
times,  its  uncontradicted  practice,  should  have  a  lower  authority  than 
apostolic  usage  and  appointment,  may  be  pronounced  impossible.  It 
is  not  like  one  of  those  trifling,  though  somewhat  superstitious,  additions, 
which  even  in  very  early  times  began  to  be  made  to  the  sacraments ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  involves  a  principle  so  important  as  to  alter  the  very 
nature  of  the  sacrament  itself.  For  if  personal  faith  be  an  essential 
requisite  of  baptism  in  all  cases  ;  if  baptism  be  a  visible  declaration  of 
this,  and  is  vicious  without  it ;  then  infant  baptism  was  an  innovation 
of  so  serious  a  nature,  that  it  must  have  attracted  attention,  and  pro- 
voked controversy,  which  would  have  led,  if  not  to  the  suppression  of 
the  error,  yet  to  a  diversity  of  practice  in  the  ancient  Churches,  which 
in  point  of  fact  did  not  exist,  Tertullian  himself  allowing  infant  baptism 
in  extreme  cases. 

The  BENEFITS  of  this  sacrament  require  to  be  briefly  exhibited. 
Baptism  introduces  the  adult  believer  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the 
Church  of  Christ ;  and  is  the  seal,  the  pledge,  to  him  on  the  part  of  God, 
of  the  fulfilment  of  all  its  provisions,  in  time  and  in  eternity ;  while,  on 
his  part,  he  takes  upon  himself  the  obligations  of  steadfast  faith  and 
obedience. 

To  the  infant  child,  it  is  a  visible  reception  into  the  same  covenant 
and  Church, — a  pledge  of  acceptance  through  Christ, — the  bestowment 
of  a  title  to  all  the  grace  of  the  covenant  as  circumstances  may  require, 
and  as  the  mind  of  the  child  may  be  capable,  or  made  capable,  of  receiv- 
ing it ;  and  as  it  may  be  sought  in  future  life  by  prayer,  when  the  period  of 
reason  and  moral  choice  shall  arrive.  It  conveys  also  the  present 
"  blessing"  of  Christ,  of  which  we  are  assured  by  his  taking  children  in 
his  arms,  and  blessing  them  ;  which  blessing  cannot  be  merely  nominal, 
but  must  be  substantial  and  efficacious.  It  secures,  too,  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  those  secret  spiritual  influences,  by  which  the  actual 
regeneration  of  those  children  who  die  in  infancy  is  eflfected  ;  and  which 
are  a  seed  of  life  in  those  who  are  spared,  to  prepare  them  for  instruction 
in  the  word  of  God,  as  they  are  taught  it  by  parental  care,  to  incline 
their  will  and  aflfections  to  good,  and  to  begin  and  maintain  in  them  the 
war  against  inward  and  outward  evil,  so  that  they  may  be  Divinely 
assisted,  as  reason  strengthens,  to  make  their  calling  and  election  sure. 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  647 

In  a  word,  it  is,  both  as  to  infants  and  to  adults,  the  sign  and  pledge  of 
that  inward  grace,  which,  although  modified  in  its  operations  by  the 
difference  of  their  circumstances,  has  respect  to,  and  flows  from,  a 
covenant  relation  to  each  of  the  three  persons  in  whose  one  name  they 
are  baptized, — acceptance  by  the  Fathek, — union  with  Chkist  as  the 
head  of  his  mystical  body,  the  Church, — and  "  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  To  these  advantages  must  be  added  the  respect  which 
God  bears  to  the  believing  act  of  the  parents,  and  to  their  solemn  prayers 
on  the  occasion,  in  both  which  the  child  is  interested ;  as  well  as  in  that 
solemn  engagement  of  the  parents,  which  the  rite  necessarily  implies,  to 
bring  up  their  child  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

To  the  parents  it  is  a  benefit  also.  It  assures  them  that  God  will  not 
only  be  their  God ;  but  "  the  God  of  their  seed  after  them ;"  it  thus 
gives  them  as  the  Israelites  of  old,  the  right  to  covenant  with  God  for 
their  "  little  ones,"  and  it  is  a  consoling  pledge  that  their  dying,  infant  off- 
spring shall  be  saved  ;  since  he  who  says,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,"  has  added,  "  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  They  are 
reminded  by  it  also  of  the  necessity  of  acquainting  themselves  with  God's 
covenant,  that  they  may  diligently  teach  it  to  their  children  ;  and  that  as 
they  have  covenanted  with  God  for  their  children,  they  are  bound  there- 
by to  enforce  the  covenant  conditions  upon  them  as  they  come  to  years, 
— by  example,  as  well  as  by  education  ;  by  prayer,  as  well  as  by  pro- 
fession of  the  name  of  Christ. 

III.  The  MODE  of  baptism  remains  to  be  considered. 

Although  the  manner  in  which  the  element  of  water  is  applied  in 
baptism  is  but  a  circumstance  of  this  sacrament,  it  will  not  be  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  those  who  reflect  upon  the  proneness  of  men  to  attach  undue 
importance  to  comparative  trifles,  that  it  has  produced  so  much  contro- 
versy. The  question  as  to  the  proper  svhjects  of  baptism  is  one  which  is 
to  be  respected  for  its  importance  ;  that  as  to  the  mode  has  occupied  more 
time,  and  excited  greater  feeling,  than  it  is  in  any  view  entitled  to.  It 
cannot,  however,  be  passed  over,  because  the  advocates  for  immersion 
are  often  very  troublesome  to  their  fellow  Christians,  unsettle  weak 
minds,  and  sometimes,  perhaps,  from  their  zeal  for  a  form,  endanger 
their  own  spirituality.  Against  the  doctrine  that  the  only  legitimate 
mode  of  baptizing  is  by  immersion,  we  may  first  observe  that  there  are 
several  strong  presumptions. 

1.  It  is  not  probable,  that  if  immersion  were  the  only  allowable  mode 
of  baptism,  it  should  not  have  been  expressly  enjoined. 

2.  It  is  not  probable,  that  in  a  religion  designed  to  be  universal,  a 
mode  of  administering  this  ordinance  should  be  obligatory,  the  practice 
of  which  is  ill  adapted  to  so  many  climates,  where  it  would  either  be 
exceedingly  harsh  to  immerse  the  candidates,  male  and  female,  strong 
and  feeble,  in  water ;  or,  in  some  places,  as  in  the  higher  latitudes,  for  a 


648  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

great  part  of  the  year,  impossible.  Even  if  immersion  were  in  fact  the 
original  mode  of  baptizing  in  the  name  of  Christ,  these  reasons  make  it 
improbable  that  no  accommodation  of  the  form  should  take  place,  without 
vitiating  the  ordinance.  This  some  of  the  stricter  Baptists  assert, 
although  they  themselves  depart  from  the  primitive  mode  of  partaking 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  accommodation  to  the  customs  of  their  country. 

3.  It  is  still  more  unlikely,  that  in  a  religion  of  mercy  there  should 
be  no  consideration  of  health  and  life  in  the  administration  of  an  ordi- 
nance of  salvation,  since  it  is  certain  that  in  countries  where  cold  bath- 
ing is  little  practised,  great  risk  of  both  is  often  incurrred,  especially  in 
the  case  of  women  and  delicate  persons  of  either  sex,  and  fatal  effects 
do  sometimes  occur. 

4.  It  is  also  exceedingly  improbable,  that  in  such  circumstances  of 
climate,  and  the  unfrequent  use  of  the  bath,  a  mode  of  baptizing  should 
have  been  appointed,  which,  from  the  shivering,  the  sobbing,  and  other 
bodily  uneasiness  produced,  should  distract  the  thoughts,  and  unfit  the 
mind  for  a  collected  performance  of  a  religious  and  solemn  act  of 
devotion. 

5.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  three  thousand  converts  at  the 
pentecost,  who,  let  it  be  observed,  were  baptized  on  the  same  day^ 
were  all  baptized  by  immersion ;  or  that  the  jailer  and  "  all  his"  were 
baptized  in  the  same  manner  in  the  night,  although  the  Baptists 
have  invented  "  a  tank  or  bath  in  the  prison  at  Phihppi"  for  that 
purpose. 

Finally,  it  is  most  of  all  improbable,  that  a  religion  like  the  Christian, 
so  scrupulously  delicate,  should  have  enjoined  the  immersion  of  women 
by  men,  and  in  the  presence  of  men.  In  an  after  age,  when  immersion 
came  into  fashion,  baptisteries,  and  rooms  for  women,  and  changes  of 
garments,  and  other  auxiliaries  to  this  practice  came  into  use,  because 
they  were  found  necessary  to  decency  ;  but  there  could  be  no  such  con- 
veniences in  the  first  instance ;  and  accordingly  we  read  of  none. 
With  all  the  arrangements  of  modern  times,  baptism  by  immersion  is 
not  a  decent  practice  ;  there  is  not  a  female,  perhaps,  who  submits  to  it, 
who  has  not  a  great  previous  struggle  with  her  delicacy ;  but  that,  at  a 
time  when  no  such  accommodations  could  be  had  as  have  since  been 
found  necessary,  such  a  ceremony  should  have  been  constantly  perform- 
ing wherever  the  apostles  and  first  preachers  went,  and  that  at  pools 
and  rivers  in  the  presence  of  many  spectators,  and  they  sometimes 
unbelievers  and  scoffers,  is  a  thing  not  rationally  credible. 

We  grant  that  the  practice  of  immersion  is  ancient ,  and  so  are  many 
other  superstitious  appendages  to  baptism,  which  were  adopted  under 
the  notion  of  making  the  rite  more  emblematical  and  impressive.  We 
not  only  trace  immersion  to  the  second  century,  but  immersion  three 
times,  anointing  with  oil,  signing  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  imposition 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  649 

of  hands,  exorcism,  eating  milk  and  honey,  putting  on  of  white  garments, 
all  connected  with  baptism,  and  first  mentioned  by  Tertullian ;  the  inven- 
tion of  men  like  himself,  who  with  much  genius  and  eloquence  had  little 
judgment,  and  were  superstitious  to  a  degree  worthy  of  the  darkest 
ages  which  followed.  It  was  this  authority  for  immersion  which  led 
Wall,  and  other  writers  on  the  side  of  infant  baptism,  to  surrender  the 
point  to  the  Antipaedobaptists,  and  to  conclude  that  immersion  was 
the  apostolic  practice.  Several  national  Churches,  too,  like  our 
own,  swayed  by  the  same  authority,  are  favourable  to  immersion,  al- 
though they  do  not  think  it  binding,  and  generally  practise  effusion  or 
sprinkling. 

Neither  Tertullian  nor  Cyprian  was,  however,  so  strenuous  for  immer- 
sion as  to  deny  the  validity  of  baptism  by  aspersion  or  effusion.  In 
cases  of  sickness  or  weakness  they  only  sprinkled  water  upon  the  face, 
which  we  suppose  no  modern  Baptist  would  allow.  Chnic  baptism  too, 
or  the  baptism  of  the  sick  in  bed,  by  aspersion,  is  allowed  by  Cyprian  to 
be  valid  ;  so  that  "  if  the  persons  recover  they  need  not  be  baptized  by 
immersion."  (Epist.  69.)  .Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  in  the  fifth  century, 
says  that  baptism  was  administered  in  the  Gallic  Church,  in  his  time, 
indifferently  by  immersion  or  by  sprinkling.  In  the  thirteenth  century, 
Thomas  Aquinas  says,  "that  baptism  may  be  given,  not  only  by  im- 
mersion, but  also  by  effusion  of  water  or  sprinkling  with  it."  And  Eras- 
mus affirms,  (Epist.  76,)  that  in  his  time  it  was  the  custom  to  sprinkle 
infants  in  Holland,  and  to  dip  them  in  England.  Of  these  two  modes, 
one  only  was  primitive  and  apostolic.  Which  that  was  we  shall  just 
now  consider.  At  present  it  is  only  necessary  to  observe,  that  immersion 
is  not  the  only  mode  which  can  plead  antiquity  in  its  favour ;  and  that, 
as  the  superstition  of  antiquity  appears  to  have  gone  most  in  favour  of 
baptism  by  immersion,  this  is  a  circumstance  which  affords  a  strong  pre- 
sumption, that  it  was  one  of  those  additions  to  the  ancient  rite  which 
superstition  originated.  This  may  be  made  out  almost  to  a  moral 
certainty,  without  referring  at  all  to  the  argument  from  Scripture.  The 
^^  ancient  Christians,"  the  ^^  primitive  Christians,"  as  they  are  called  by 
the  advocates  of  immersion,  that  is.  Christians  of  about  the  age  of  Ter- 
t«llian  and  Cyprian,  and  a  little  downward, — whose  practice  of  immersion 
is  used  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  mode  only  to  have  had  apostolic 
sanction, — baptized  the  candidates  naked.  Thus  Wall  in  his  History  of 
Baptism  :  "  The  ancient  Christians,  when  they  were  baptized  by  immer- 
sion, were  all  baptized  naked,  whether  they  were  men,  women,  or  children. 
They  thought  it  better  represented  the  putting  off  of  the  old  man,  and  also 
the  nakedness  of  Christ  on  the  cross  ;  moreover,  as  baptism  is  a  washing, 
they  judged  it  should  be  the  washing  of  the  body,  not  of  the  clothes." 
This  is  an  instance  of  the  manner  in  which  they  affected  to  improve  the 
emblematical  character  of  the  ordinance.     Robinson  also,  in  his  History 

2 


650  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  Baptism,  states  the  same  thing  :  "Let  it  be  observed  that  the  primitive 
Christians  baptized  naked.  There  is  no  ancient  historical  fact  better 
authenticated  than  this."  "They,  however,"  says  Wall,  "took  great 
care  for  preserving  the  modesty  of  any  woman  who  was  to  be  baptized. 
None  but  women  came  near  till  her  body  was  in  the  water ;  then  the 
priest  came,  and  putting  her  head  also  under  the  water,  he  departed  and 
left  her  to  the  women."  Now,  if  antiquity  be  pleaded  as  a  proof  that 
immersion  was  the  really  piimitive  mode  of  baptizing,  it  must  be  pleaded 
in  favour  of  the  gross  and  offensive  circumstance  of  baptizing  naked, 
which  was  considered  of  as  much  importance  as  the  other  ;  and  then  we 
may  safely  leave  it  for  any  one  to  say  whether  he  really  believes  that 
the  three  thousand  persons  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were 
baptized  naked  ?  and  whether  when  St.  Paul  baptized  Lydia,  she  was 
put  into  the  water  naked  by  her  women,  and  that  the  apostle  then 
hastened  "  to  put  her  head  under  water  also,  using  the  form  of  bap- 
tism, and  retired,  leaving  her  to  the  women"  to  take  her  away  to  dress  ? 
Immersion,  with  all  its  appendages,  dipping  three  times,  nakedness, 
unction,  the  eating  of  milk  and  honey,  exorcism,  &;c,  bears  manifest 
marks  of  that  disposition  to  improve  upon  God's  ordinances,  for 
which  even  the  close  of  the  second  century  was  remarkable,  and 
which  laid  the  foundation  of  that  general  corruption  wliich  so  speedily 
followed. 

But  we  proceed  to  the  New  Testament  itself,  and  deny  that  a  single 
clear  case  of  baptism  by  immersion  can  be  produced  from  it. 

The  word  itself,  as  it  has  been  often  shown,  proves  nothing.  The  verb, 
w^ith  its  derivatives,  signifies  to  dip  the  hand  into  a  dish,  Matt,  xxvi,  23  ; 
to  stain  a  vesture  with  blood,  Rev.  xix,  13 ;  to  wet  the  body  with  dew,  Dan. 
iv,  33 ;  to  paint  or  smear  the  face  with  colours  ;  to  stain  the  hand  by  press- 
ing a  substance  ;  to  be  overwhelmed  in  the  waters  as  a  sunken  ship  ;  to 
be  drowned  by  falling  into  water ;  to  sink,  in  the  neuter  sense  ;  to  immerse 
totally ;  to  plunge  up  to  the  neck ;  to  be  immersed  up  to  the  middle ;  to 
be  drunken  with  wine  ;  to  be  dyed,  tinged,  and  imbued  ;  to  wash  by  effu- 
sion of  water ;  to  pour  water  upon  the  hands,  or  any  other  part  of  the  body ; 
to  sprinkle.  A  word  then  of  such  large  application  affords  as  good  proof 
for  sprinkUng,  or  partial  dipping,  or  washing  with  water,  as  for  immersion 
in  it.  The  controversy  on  this  accommodating  word  has  been  carried  on  to 
weariness ;  and  if  even  the  advocates  of  immersion  could  prove,  what 
they  have  not  been  able  to  do,  that  plunging  is  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  term,  they  would  gain  nothing,  since,  in  Scripture,  it  is  notoriously 
used  to  express  other  applications  of  water.  The  Jews  had  "  divers 
baptisms"  in  their  service  ;  but  these  washings  of  the  body  in  or  with 
water,  were  not  immersions,  and  in  some  instances  they  were  mere 
sprinklings.  The  Pharisees  "  baptized  before  they  ate,"  but  this  bap- 
tism was  "  the  washing  of  hands,"  which  in  eastern  countries  is  done  by 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  651 

servants  pouring  water  over  them,  and  not  by  dipping : — "  Here  is  Eli- 
sha,  the  son  of  Shaphat,  who  poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah," 
2  Kings  iii,  1 1 ;  that  is,  who  acted  as  his  servant.  In  the  same  manner 
the  feet  were  washed  :  "  Thou  gavest  me  no  water  upon^  s-rj,  my  feet," 
Luke  vii,  44.  Again,  the  Pharisees  are  said  to  have  held  the  "  wash- 
ing" or  baptism  "  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables ;"  not 
certainly  for  the  sake  of  cleanliness,  (for  all  people  hold  the  washing  or 
baptism  of  such  utensils  for  this  purpose,)  but  from  superstitious  notions 
of  purification.  Now,  as  "sprinkling"  is  prescribed  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  was  familiar  to  the  Jews,  as  the  mode  of  purification  from 
uncleanness,  as  in  the  case  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  water  of  separation, 
Num.  xix,  19,  it  is  for  this  reason  much  more  probable  that  the  baptism 
of  these  vessels  was  eflTected  by  sprinkling,  than  by  either  pouring  or 
immersion.  But  that  they  were  not  immersed,  at  least  not  the  whole 
of  them,  may  be  easily  made  to  appear ;  and  if  "  baptism"  as  to  any  of 
these  utensils  does  not  signify  immersion,  the  argument  from  the  use  of 
the  word  must  be  abandoned.  Suppose,  then,  the  pots,  cups,  and  brazen 
vessels,  to  have  been  baptized  by  immersion ;  the  "  beds"  or  couches 
used  to  recline  upon  at  their  meals,  which  they  ate  in  an  accumbent 
posture,  couches  which  were  constructed  for  three  or  five  persons  each 
to  he  down  upon,  must  certainly  have  been  exempted  from  the  operation 
of  a  "  baptism"  by  dipping,  which  was  probably  practised,  like  the  "bap- 
tism"  of  their  hands,  before  every  meal.  The  word  is  also  used  by  the 
LXX,  in  Dan.  iv,  33,  where  Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  to  have  been  wet  with 
the  dew  of  heaven,  which  was  plainly  effected,  not  by  his  immersion  in 
dew,  but  by  its  descent  upon  him.  Finalh^  it  occurs  in  1  Cor.  x,  2,  "  And 
were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea ;"  where  also  im- 
mersion  is  out  of  the  case.  The  Israelites  were  not  immersed  in  the 
sea,  for  they  went  through  it,  "  as  on  dry  land ;"  and  they  were  not 
immersed  in  the  cloud,  which  was  above  them.  In  this  case,  if  the 
spray  of  the  sea  is  referred  to,  or  the  descent  of  rain  from  the  cloud, 
they  were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  or  at  most  by  pouring  ;  and  that  there 
is  an  allusion  to  the  latter  circumstance,  is  made  almost  certain  by  a 
passage  in  the  song  of  Deborah,  and  other  expressions  in  the  Psalms, 
which  speak  of"  rain,"  and  the  "  pouring  out  of  water,"  and  "droppings" 
from  the  "  cloud"  which  directed  the  march  of  the  Jews  in  the  wilder- 
ness.  Whatever,  therefore,  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb  "  to 
baptize"  may  be,  is  a  question  of  no  importance  on  one  side  or  the 
other.  Leaving  the  mode  of  administering  baptism,  as  a  religious  rite, 
out  of  the  question,  it  is  used,  generally,  at  least  in  the  New  Testament, 
not  to  express  immersion  in  water,  but  for  the  act  of  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling it ;  and  that  baptism,  when  spoken  of  as  a  religious  rite,  is  to  be 
understood  as  administered  by  immersion,  no  satisfactory  instance  can 

^e  adduced. 

2 


652  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

The  baptism  of  John  is  the  first  instance  usually  adduced  in  proof  of 
this  practice  : — The  multitudes  who  went  out  to  him  were  "  baptized  of 
him  IN  Jordan  ;"  they  were  therefore  immersed. 

To  say  nothing  here  of  the  laborious,  and  apparently  impossible  task 
imposed  upon  John,  of  plunging  the  multitudes,  who  flocked  to  him  day 
by  day,  into  the  river  ;  and  the  indecency  of  the  whole  proceeding  when 
women  were  also  concerned  ;  it  is  plain  that  the  principal  object  of  the 
evangelist,  in  making  this  statement,  was  to  point  out  the  place  where 
John  exercised  his  ministry  and  baptized,  and  not  to  describe  the  mode ; 
if  the  latter  is  at  all  referred  to,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  this  was 
incidental  to  the  other  design.  Now  it  so  happens  that  we  have  a  pas- 
sage which  relates  to  John's  baptism,  and  which  can  only  be  fairly  inter- 
preted by  referring  to  his  mode  of  baptizing,  as  the  first  considera- 
tion ;  a  passage  too,  which  John  himself  uttered  at  the  very  time  he  was 
baptizing  "  in  Jordan."  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repent- 
ance ;  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I :  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  Our  translators,  in  this  pas. 
sage,  aware  of  the  absurdity  of  translating  the  preposition  sv,  in,  have 
properly  rendered  it  with ;  but  the  advocates  of  immersion  do  not  stumble 
at  trifles,  and  boldly  rush  into  the  absurdity  of  Campbell's  translation, 
"  I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water,  he  will  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  fire."  Unfortunately  for  this  translation,  we  have  not  only  the  utter 
senselessness  of  the  phrases  haptized,  'plunged  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
plunged  in  fire  to  set  against  it ;  but  also  the  very  history  of  the  com- 
pletion of  this  prophetic  declaration,  and  that  not  only  as  to  the /ocZ  that 
Christ  did  indeed  baptize  his  disciples  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire, 
but  also  as  to  the  mode  in  which  this  baptism  was  eflfected  :  "  And  there 
appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  ofjire,  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Thus 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  fire  was  a  descent  upon,  and  not 
an  immersion  into.  With  this  too  agree  all  the  accounts  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit :  they  are  all  from  above,  like  the  pouring  out  or 
shedding  of  water  upon  the  head ;  nor  is  there  any  expression  in  Scrips 
ture  which  bears  the  most  remote  resemblance  to  immersing,  plunging 
in  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  our  Lord  received  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  "  the  Spirit  of  God  descended  hke  a  dove,  and  lighted  upon 
him."  When  Cornelius  and  his  family  received  the  same  gift,  "  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word ;"  "  and  they  of 
the  circumcision  that  believed  were  astonished,  because  that  on  the 
Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which,  as 
the  words  imply,  had  been  in  like  manner  '^poured  out  on  them."  The 
common  phrase,  to  "  receive"  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  also  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  being  immersed,  plunged  into  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  finally, 
when  St.  Paul  connects  the  baptism  with  water,  and  the  baptism  with 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  653 

the  Holy  Ghost  together,  as  in  the  words  of  John  the  Baptist  just  quoted, 
he  expresses  the  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  in  the  same  manner : 
"  According  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  which  he  sued  on  us  abundantly, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,"  Titus  iii,  5,  6.  That  the  mode  there- 
fore  in  which  John  baptized  was  by  pouring  water  upon  his  disciples, 
may  be  concluded  from  his  using  the  same  word  to  express  the  pouring 
out,  the  descent,  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  For  if  bap- 
tism necessarily  means  immersion,  and  John  baptized  by  immersion, 
then  did  not  Jesus  baptize  his  disciples  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  might 
bestow  it  upon  them,  but  he  did  not  baptize  them  with  it,  according  to 
the  Immersionists,  since  he  only  "  poured  it  upon  them,"  "  shed  it  upon 
them,"  caused  it  "  to  fall  upon  them ;"  none  of  which,  according  to 
them,  is  baptism.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  prediction  of  John  was 
never  fulfilled,  because,  in  their  sense  of  baptizing,  none  of  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ever  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  but  by  effusion.  This  is  the  dilemma  into  which  they  put  them- 
selves. They  must  allow  that  baptism  is  not  in  this  passage  used  for 
immersion ;  or  they  must  deny  that  Jesus  ever  did  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

To  baptize  "  in  Jordan,"  does  not  then  signify  to  plunge  in  the  river 
of  Jordan.  John  made  the  neighbourhood  of  Jordan  the  principal  place 
of  his  ministry.  Either  at  the  fountains  of  some  favoured  district,  or  at 
some  river,  baptize  he  must  because  of  the  multitudes  who  came  to  his 
baptism,  in  a  country  deficient  in  springs,  and  of  water  in  general ;  but 
there  are  several  ways  of  understanding  the  phrase  "  in  Jordan,"  which 
give  a  sufficiently  good  sense,  and  involve  no  contradiction  to  the  words 
of  John  himself,  who  makes  his  baptism  an  effusion  of  water,  to  answer 
to  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  administered  by  Jesus.  It  may  be 
taken  as  a  note  oi^  place,  not  of  mode.  "  In  Jordan,"  therefore,  the  ex- 
pression of  St.  Matthew,  is,  in  St.  John,  "  in  Bethabara,  beyond,"  or 
situate  on,  "Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing  ;"  and  this  seems  all  that 
the  expression  was  intended  to  mark,  and  is  the  sense  to  be  preferred. 
It  is  thus  equivalent  to  "ai  Jordan,"  "crt  Bethabara,  situate  on  Jordan;" 
at  being  a  frequent  sense  of  sv.  Or  it  may  signify  that  the  water  of 
Jordan  was  made  use  of  by  John  for  baptizing,  however  it  might  be  ap- 
plied ;  for  we  should  think  it  no  violent  mode  of  expression  to  say  that 
we  washed  ourselves  in  a  river,  although  we  should  mean,  not  that  we 
plunged  ourselves  into  it,  but  merely  that  we  took  up  the  water  in  our 
hands,  and  applied  it  in  the  way  of  effusion.  Or  it  may  be  taken  to  ex- 
press his  baptizing  in  the  bed  of  the  river,  into  which  he  must  have  de- 
scended with  the  baptized,  in  order  to  take  up  the  water  with  his  hand, 
or  with  some  small  vessel,  as  represented  in  ancient  bass-reliefs,  to  pour 
it  out  upon  them.     This  would  be  the  position  of  any  baptizer  using  a 

2 


654  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

river  at  all  accessible  by  a  shelving  bank ;  and  when  within  the  bed  of 
the  stream,  he  might  as  truly  be  said  to  be  in  the  river,  when  mere  place 
was  the  principal  thing  to  be  pointed  out,  as  if  he  had  been  immersed  in 
the  water.  The  Jordan  in  this  respect  is  rather  remarkable,  having, 
according  to  Maundrell,  an  outermost  bank  formed  by  its  occasional 
«  swellings."  The  remark  of  this  traveller  is,  «  After  having  descended 
the  outermost  hank,  you  go  a  furlong  upon  a  level  strand,  before  you 
come  to  the  immediate  bank  of  the  river."  Any  of  these  views  of  the 
import  of  the  phrases  "  in  Jordan,"  "  in  the  river  of  Jordan,"  used 
plainly  with  intention  to  point  out  the  place  where  John  exercised  his 
ministry,  will  sufficiently  explain  them,  without  involving  us  in  the  inex- 
tricable difficulties  which  embarrass  the  theory,  that  John  baptized 
only  by  immersion.  To  go  indeed  to  a  river  to  baptize,  would,  in  such 
countries  as  our  own,  where  water  for  the  mere  purpose  of  effiision 
may  readily  be  obtained  out  of  cisterns,  pumps,  &c,  very  naturally  sug- 
gests to  the  simple  reader,  that  the  reason  for  John's  choice  of  a  river 
was,  that  it  affiDrded  the  means  of  immersion.  But  in  those  countries 
the  case  was  different.  Springs,  as  we  have  said,  were  scarce,  and  the 
water  for  domestic  purposes  had  to  be  fetched  daily  by  the  women  in 
pitchers  from  the  nearest  rivers  and  fountains,  which  rendered  the  do- 
mestic supply  scanty,  and  of  course  valuable.  But  even  if  this  reason 
did  not  exist,  baptism  in  rivers  would  not,  as  a  matter  of  course,  imply 
immersion.  Of  this  we  have  an  instance  in  the  customs  of  the  people 
of  Mesopotamia,  mentioned  in  the  journal  of  Wolfe,  the  missionary. 
This  sect  of  Christians  call  themselves  "  the  followers  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  who  was  a  follower  of  Christ."  Among  many  other  questions, 
Mr.  Wolfe  inquired  of  one  of  them  respecting  their  mode  of  baptism, 
and  was  answered,  "  The  priests  or  bishop  baptize  children  thirty  days 
old.  They  take  the  child  to  the  banks  of  the  river ;  a  relative  or  friend 
holds  the  child  near  the  surface  of  the  water,  while  the  priest  sprinkles 
the  element  upon  the  child,  and  with  prayers  they  name  the  child."  {Jour. 
naif  vol.  ii,  p.  311.)  Mr.  Wolfe  asks,  "  Why  do  they  baptize  in  rivers?" 
Answer :  "  Because  St.  John  the  Baptist  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan." 
The  same  account  was  given  afterward  by  one  of  their  bishops  or  high 
priests :  "They  carry  the  children,  after  thirty  days,  to  the  river,  the  priest 
says  a  prayer,  the  godfather  takes  the  child  to  the  river,  while  the  priest 
sprinkles  it  with  water."  Thus  we  have  in  modern  times  river  baptism 
without  immersion  ;  and  among  the  Syrian  Christians,  though  immersion 
is  used,  it  does  not  take  place  till  after  the  true  baptismal  rite,  pouring 
water  upon  the  child  in  the  name  of  the  trinity,  has  been  performed. 

The  second  proof  adduced  by  the  Immersionists  is  taken  from  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord,  who  is  said.  Matt,  iii,  16,  "  to  have  gone  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water."     Here,  however,  the  preposition  used  signifies 
from,  and  av£(3r]  o.ito  tjs  \)bar%,  is  simply  "he  went  u^  from  the  waterl^ 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  655 

We  grant  that  this  might  have  been  properly  said  in  whatever  way  the 
baptism  had  been  previously  performed ;  but  then  it  certainly  in  itself 
affords  no  argument  on  which  to  build  the  notion  of  Lhe  immersion  of 
our  Saviour. 

The  great  passage  of  the  Immersionists,  however,  is  Acts  viii,  38, 
39 :  "  And  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him  ;  and  when  they  were  come  up  out  of 
the  water,"  &,c.  This  is  relied  upon  as  a  decisive  proof  of  the  immer' 
sion  and  emersion  of  the  eunuch.  If  so,  however,  it  proves  too  much ; 
for  nothing  is  said  of  the  eunuch  which  is  not  said  of  Philip,  "  They 
went  down  both  into  the  water," — "  And  when  tiiey  were  come  up 
out  of  the  water ;" — and  so  Philip  must  have  immersed  himself  as  well 
as  the  eunuch.  Nor  will  the  prepositions  determine  the  case ;  they 
would  have  been  employed  properly  had  Phihp  and  the  eunuch  gone 
into  the  water  by  partial  or  by  entire  immersion,  and  therefore  come  out 
of  it  on  dry  land  ;  and  with  equal  propriety,  and  according  to  the  ha- 
bitual use  of  the  same  prepositions  by  Greek  writers,  they  would  express 
going  to  the  water,  without  going  into  it,  and  returning  from  it,  and  not 
out  of  it,  for  sij  is  spoken  of  place,  and  properly  signifies  at,  or  it  indi- 
cates motion  toward  a  certain  limit,  and,  for  any  thing  that  appears  to 
the  contrary  in  the  history  of  the  eunuch's  baptism,  that  limit  may  just 
as  well  be  placed  at  the  nearest  verge  of  the  water  as  in  the  middle  of 
it.  Thus  the  LXX  say,  Isa.  xxvi,  2,  "  The  king  sent  Rabshakeh  from 
Lachish,  zig,  to  Jerusalem,"  certainly  not  into  it,  for  the  city  was  not 
captured.  The  sons  of  the  prophets  "  came,  si?,  to  Jordan  to  cut  wood," 
2  Kings  vi,  4.  They  did  not,  we  suppose,  go  into  the  water  to  perform 
that  work.  Peter  was  bid  to  "  go,  sis,  to  the  sea,  and  cast  a  hook," 
not  surely  to  go  into  the  sea ;  and  our  Lord,  Matt,  v,  1,  "  went  up,  sis, 
to  a  mountain,"  but  not  into  it.  The  corresponding  preposition  sx, 
which  signifies,  when  used  of  place, /ro?7i,  out  of,  must  be  measured  by 
the  meaning  of  sij.  When  sig  means  into,  then  sx  means  otU  of ;  but 
when  it  means  simply  to,  then  sx  can  express  no  more  than /rom.  Thus 
this  passage  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  the  Immersionists. 

The  next  proof  rehed  upon  in  favour  of  immersion  is,  John  iii,  22, 
23  :  "  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land  of 
Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them  and  baptized  ;  and  John  also  was 
baptizing  in  ^non,  near  to  Sahm,  because  there  was  much  water  there, 
and  they  came  and  were  baptized."  The  Immersionists  can  see  no 
reason  for  either  Jesus  or  John  baptizing  where  there  was  much  water, 
but  that  they  plunged  their  converts.  The  true  reason  for  this  has 
however  been  already  given.  Where  could  the  multitudes  who  came 
for  baptism  be  assembled  ?  Clearly,  not  in  houses.  The  preaching 
was  in  the  fields  ;  and  since  the  rite  which  was  to  follow  a  ministry 
which  made  such  an  impression,  and  drew  together  such  crowds,  wa& 


656  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

baptism,  the  necessity  of  the  case  must  lead  the  Baptist  to  Jordan,  or  to 
some  other  district,  where,  if  a  river  was  wanting,  fountains  at  least  ex- 
isted. The  necessity  was  equal  in  this  case,  whether  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism were  that  of  aspersion,  of  pouring,  or  of  immersion. 

The  Baptists,  however,  have  magnified  ^Enon,  which  signifies  the 
fountain  of  On,  into  a  place  of  "  many  and  great  waters."  Unfortu- 
nately, however,  no  such  powerful  fountain,  sending  out  many  streams 
of  water  fit  for  plunging  multitudes  into,  has  ever  been  found  by  travel- 
lers, although  the  country  has  been  often  visited  ;  and  certainly  if  its 
streams  had  been  of  the  copious  and  remarkable  character  assigned  to 
them,  they  could  not  have  vanished.  It  rather  appears,  however,  that 
the  "  much  water,"  or  "  many  waters,"  in  the  text,  refers  rather  to  the 
whole  tract  of  country,  than  to  the  fountain  of  On  itself;  because  it 
appears  to  be  given  by  the  evangehst  as  the  reason  why  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  came  into  the  same  neighbourhood  to  baptize.  Different  bap- 
tisms were  administered,  and  therefore  in  different  places.  The  baptism 
administered  by  Jesus  at  this  time  was  one  of  multitudes  ;  this  appears 
from  the  remark  of  one  of  John's  disciples  to  his  master  :  "  He  that  was 
with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  barest  witness,  behold,  the  same 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him.^^  The  place  or  places  too,  where 
Jesus  baptized,  although  in  the  same  district,  could  not  be  very  near, 
since  John's  disciple  mentions  the  multitudes  who  came  to  be  baptized 
by  Jesus,  or  rather  by  his  disciples,  as  a  piece  of  information  ;  and  thus 
we  find  a  reason  for  the  mention  of  the  much  water,  or  many  waters, 
with  reference  to  the  district  of  country  itself,  and  not  to  the  single 
fountain  of  On.  The  tract  had  probably  many  fountains  in  it,  which, 
as  being  a  peculiarity  in  a  country  not  generally  so  distinguished,  would 
lead  to  the  use  of  the  expression,  "much  water,"  although  not  one  of 
these  fountains  or  wells  might  be  sufficient  to  allow  of  the  plunging  of 
numbers  of  people,  and  probably  was  not.  Indeed  if  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
baptized  by  immersion,  the  Immersionists  are  much  more  concerned  to 
discover  "  much  water,"  "  many  waters,"  "  large  and  deep  streams," 
somewhere  else  in  the  district  than  at  iEnon ;  because  it  is  plain  from 
the  narrative,  that  the  number  of  candidates  for  John's  baptism  had 
greatly  fiillen  off  at  that  time,  and  that  the  people  now  generally 
flocked  to  Christ.  Hence  the  remark  of  John,  verse  30,  when  his  dis- 
ciples  had  informed  him  that  Jesus  was  baptizing  in  the  neighbourhood, 
and  that  "  all  men  came  to  him," — "  He  must  increase,  I  must  de- 
crease."  Hence  also  the  observation  of  the  evangelist  in  the  first  verse 
of  the  next  chapter,  "  The  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and 
baptized  more  disciples  than  John." 

As  these  instances  all  so  plainly  fail  to  serve  the  cause  of  immersion, 
we  need  not  dwell  upon  the  others.  The  improbability  of  three  thou- 
sand persons  being  immersed  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  has  been  already 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  657 

mentioned.  The  baptism  of  Saul,  of  Lydia,  of  the  Phihppian  jailer, 
and  of  the  family  of  Cornehus,  are  all  instaiices  of  house  baptism,  and, 
for  that  reason,  are  still  less  Ukely  to  have  been  by  plunging.  The 
Immersionists,  indeed,  invent  "  tanks,"  or  "  baths,"  for  this  purpose,  in 
all  these  houses ;  but,  as  nothing  of  the  kind  appears  on  the  face  of  the 
history,  or  is  even  incidentally  suggested,  suppositions  prove  nothing. 

Thus  all  the  presumptions  before  mentioned,  against  the  practice  of 
immersion,  lie  full  against  it,  without  any  relief  from  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  Not  one  instance  can  be  shown  of  that  practice  from  the 
New  Testament ;  while,  so  far  as  baptism  was  emblematical  of  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  doctrine  of  immersion  wholly  destroys 
its  significancy.  In  fact,  if  the  true  mode  of  baptism  be  immersion 
only,  then  must  we  wholly  give  up  the  phreise,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  in  any  other  mode  than  that  of  pouring  out  was  never 
administered. 

The  only  argument  left  for  the  advocates  of  immersion  is  the  sup- 
posed allusion  to  the  mode  of  baptism  contained  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul, 
Rom.  vi,  3,  4  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism,  into  death  ;  that,  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  hfe."  It  is  necessary,  however,  to  quote  the  next  verses 
also,  which  are  dependent  upon  the  foregoing,  "  For  if  we  have  been 
PLANTED  together,"  still  by  baptism,  "  in  the  hkeness  of  his  death,  we 
shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection ;  knowing  this,  that  our 
old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed, 
that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin.  For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed 
from  sin,"  v,  5-7.  Why  then  do  not  the  advocates  of  immersion  go 
forward  to  these  verses,  so  inseparably  connected  with  those  they  are 
so  ready  to  quote,  and  show  us  a  resemblance,  not  only  between  bap- 
tism by  immersion,  and  being  buried  with  Christ ;  but  also  between  im- 
mersion, and  being  "planted  with  Christ?"  If  the  allusion  of  the  apos- 
tle is  to  the  planting  of  a  young  tree  in  the  earth,  there  is  clearly  but 
a  very  partial,  not  a  total  immersion  in  the  case ;  and  if  it  be  to  graft- 
ing a  branch  upon  a  tree,  the  resemblance  is  still  more  imperfect. 
Still  farther,  as  the  apostle  in  the  same  connection  speaks  of  our  being 
"  CRUCIFIED  with  Christ,"  and  that  also  by  baptism,  why  do  they  not 
show  us  how  immersion  in  water  resembles  the  nailing  of  a  body  to  a 


cross 


But  this  striking  and  important  text  is  not  to  be  explained  by  a  fancied 
resemblance  between  a  burial,  as  they  choose  to  call  it,  of  the  body  in 
water,  and  the  burial  of  Christ ;  as  if  a  dip  or  a  plunge  could  have  any 
resemblance  to  that  separation  from  the  living,  and  that  laying  aside  of  a 
body  in  the  sepulchre,  which  burial  implies.    This  forced  thought  darkens 

Vol.  II.  42 


658  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

and  enervates  the  whole  passage,  instead  of  bringing  forth  its  powerful 
sentiments  into  clearer  view.  Tiie  manifest  object  of  the  apostle  in  the 
whole  of  this  part  of  his  epistle,  was  to  show,  that  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  alone,  which  he  had  just  been  estabUshing,  could  not, 
in  any  true  believer  lead  to  hcentiousness  of  Ufe.  "  What  then  shall 
we  say  ?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God  for- 
bid !  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  Hve  any  longer  therein  ?" 
The  reason  then  which  is  given  by  the  apostle  why  true  believers  can. 
NOT  continue  in  sin,  is,  that  they  are  "  dead  to  sin,"  which  is  his  answer 
to  the  objection.  Now,  this  mystical  death  to  sin  he  proceeds  to  attri- 
bute to  the  INSTRUMENTALITY  of  baptism,  taking  it  to  be  an  act  of  that 
faith  in  Christ  of  which  it  was  the  external  expression ;  and  then  he 
immediately  runs  into  a  favourite  comparison,  which  under  various 
forms  occurs  in  his  writings,  sometimes  accompanied  with  the  same 
allusion  to  baptism,  and  sometimes  referring  only  to  "  faith"  as  the  in- 
strument,— a  comparison  between  the  mystical  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection of  believers,  and  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
This  is  the  comparison  of  the  text ;  not  a  comparison  between  our  mys- 
tical death  and  baptism  ;  nor  between  baptism,  and  the  death  and  burial 
of  Christ ;  either  of  which  lay  wide  of  the  apostle's  intention.  Baptism, 
as  an  act  of  faith,  is,  in  fact,  expressly  made,  not  <i  figure  of  the  effects 
which  follow,  as  stated  in  the  text,  but  the  means  of  effecting  them. 
"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ, 
were  baptized  into  his  death ;"  we  enter  by  this  means  into  the  expe- 
rience of  its  efficacy  in  effecting  a  mystical  death  in  us ;  in  other  words, 
WE  DIE  with  him,  or  as  it  is  expressed  in  verse  6,  "  Our  old  man  is 
crucified  with  himJ'^  Still  farther,  "  by  baptism,"  6ia.  m  ^a-n'Tirffjiaroj, 
through^  or  hy  means  of,  baptism,  "  we  are  buried  with  him ;"  we  not 
only  die  to  sin  and  the  world,  but  we  are  separated  wholly  from  it,  as 
the  body  of  Christ  was  separated  from  the  Uving  world,  when  laid  in 
the  sepulchre  ;  the  connection  between  sin  and  the  world  and  us  is  com- 
pletely broken,  as  those  who  are  buried  and  put  out  of  sight  are  no 
longer  reckoned  among  men  ;  nay,  as  the  slave  (for  the  apostle  brings 
in  this  figure  also)  is  by  death  and  burial  wholly  put  out  of  the  power 
of  his  former  master,  so,  "  that  we  should  not  serve  sin  ;  for  he  that  is 
dead  is  freed  from  sin."  But  we  also  mystically  rise  with  him ;  "  that 
like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life,"  having  new  connections, 
new  habits,  new  enjoyments,  and  new  hopes.  We  have  a  similar  pas- 
sage in  Col.  ii,  12,  and  it  has  a  similar  interpretation:  "Buried  with 
him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  In  the 
preceding  verse  the  apostle  had  been  speaking  of  the  mystical  death 
of  Christians  under  the  phrase,  ^^  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  659 

flesh ;"  then,  as  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  adds  our  mystical 
BURIAL  with  Christ,  which  is  a  heightened  representation  of  death ; 
and  then  also,  our  rising  again  with  Christ.  Here  too  all  these  three 
effects  are  attributed  to  baptism  as  the  means.  We  put  off  the  body  of 
sins  "  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  that  is,  as  we  have  seen,  by 
Christian  circumcision  or  baptism  ;  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  ; 
zv  being  obviously  used  here,  like  Sia,  to  denote  the  instrument ;  and  by 
baptism  we  rise  with  him  into  a  new  life. 

Now,  to  institute  a  comparison  between  a  mode  of  baptism  and  the 
burial  of  Christ,  wholly  destroys  the  meaning  of  the  passage  ;  for  how 
can  the  apostle  speak  of  baptism  as  an  emblem  of  Christ's  burial,  when 
he  argues  from  it  as  the  instrument  of  our  death  unto  sin,  and  separation 
from  it  by  a  mystical  burial  ?  Nor  is  baptism  here  made  use  of  as  the 
emblem  of  our  own  spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  As  an  em- 
blem, even  immersion,  though  it  might  put  forth  a  clumsy  type  of  burial 
and  rising  again,  is  wanting  in  not  being  emblematical  of  death;  and 
yet  all  three,  our  mystical  death,  burial,  and  rising  again,  are  distinctly 
spoken  of,  and  must  all  be  found  represented  in  some  type.  But  the 
type  made  use  of  by  the  apostle  is  manifestly  not  baptism,  but  the 
death,  the  burial,  and  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord ;  and  in  this  view  he 
pursues  this  bold  and  impressive  figure  to  even  the  verge  of  allegory,  in 
the  succeeding  verses :  "  For  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin.  Now 
if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  him  : 
knowing  that  Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead  dieth  no  more ;  death  hath 
no  more  dominion  over  him.  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin 
once ;  but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  Hveth  unto  God ;  likewise  reckon  ye 
also  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

In  the  absence  therefore  of  all  proof,  that,  in  any  instance  found  in 
the  New  Testament,  baptism  was  administered  by  immersion ;  with  so 
many  presumptions  against  that  indecent  practice  as  have  been  stated ; 
with  the  decisive  evidence  also  of  a  designed  correspondence  between 
the  baptism,  tJie  pouring  out,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  baptism,  the 
pouring  out,  of  water ;  we  may  conclude,  with  confidence,  that  the  lat- 
ter was  the  apostohc  mode  of  administering  that  ordinance  ;  and  that 
first  weishing,  and  then  immersion,  were  introduced  later,  toward  the 
latter  end  of  the  second  century,  along  with  several  other  superstitious 
additions  to  this  important  sacrament,  originating  in  that  "  will  worship" 
which  presumed  to  destroy  the  simpHcity  of  God's  ordinances,  under 
pretence  of  (4)  rendering  them  more   emblematical  and  impressive. 

(4)  Baptism,  as  an  emblem,  points  out,  1.  The  wasliing  away  of  the  guilt  and 
pollution  of  sin.  2.  The  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  Scripture  it  is 
made  an  emblem  of  these  two,  and  of  these  only.  Some  of  the  superstitions  above 
alluded  to  sin  therefore  by  excess;  but  immersion  sins  by  defect.     It  retains  the 


660  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Even  if  immersion  had  been  the  original  mode  of  baptizing,  we  should, 
in  the  absence  of  any  command  on  the  subject,  direct  or  implied,  have 
thought  the  Church  at  hberty  to  accommodate  the  manner  of  applying 
water  to  the  body  in  the  name  of  the  trinity,  in  which  the  essence  of 
the  rite  consists,  to  different  climates  and  manners ;  but  it  is  satisfactory 
to  discover  that  all  the  attempts  made  to  impose  upon  Christians  a  practice 
repulsive  to  the  feelings,  dangerous  to  the  health,  and  offensive  to 
dehcacy  is  destitute  of  all  Scriptural  authority,  and  of  really  primitive 
practice 


CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Institutions  of  the  Church — The  Lord's  Supper. 

The  agreement  and  difference  between  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per are  well  stated  by  the  Church  of  Scotland  in  its  catechism :  "  The  sa- 
craments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  agree,  in  that  the  author  of 
both  is  God  ;  the  spiritual  part  of  both  is  Christ  and  his  benefits  ;  both 
are  seals  of  the  same  covenant ;  to  be  dispensed  by  ministers  of  the 
Gospel,  and  none  other ;  and  to  be  continued  in  the  Church  of  Christ 
until  his  second  coming."  "  These  sacraments  differ,  in  that  baptism  is 
to  be  administered  but  once  with  water, — and  that  even  to  infants ; 
whereas  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  administered  often,  in  the  elements 
of  bread  and  wine,  to  represent  and  exhibit  Christ  as  spiritual  nou- 
rishment to  the  soul,  and  to  confirm  our  continuance  and  growth  in 
him,  and  that  only  to  such  as  are  of  years  and  ability  to  examine 
themselves," 

As  baptism  was  substituted  for  circumcision,  so  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  put  by  our  Saviour  in  the  place  of  the  passover  ;  and  was  instituted 
immediately  after  celebrating  that  ordinance  for  the  last  time  with  his 
disciples.  The  passover  was  an  eminent  type  of  our  Lord's  sacrifice 
and  of  its  benefits ;  and  since  he  was  about  to  fulfil  that  symbolical  rite 
which  from  age  to  age  had  continued  to  exhibit  it  to  the  faith  and  hope 
of  ancient  saints,  it  could  have  no  place  under  the  new  dispensation. — 
Christ  in  person  became  the  true  passover  ;  and  a  new  rite  was  neces- 
sary to  commemorate  the  spiritual  deliverance  of  men,  and  to  convey 

emblematical  character  of  the  rite  as  to  the  washing  away  of  sin;  but  it  loses  it 
entirely  as  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and,  beyond  the  washing  away  of  sin, 
is  an  emblem  of  nothing  for  which  we  have  any  Scriptural  authority  to  make  it 
emblematical.  Immersion,  therefore,  as  distinct  from  every  other  mode  of 
applying  water  to  the  body,  means  nothing.  To  say  that  it  figures  our  spiritual 
death  and  resurrection,  has,  we  have  seen,  no  authority  from  the  texts  used  to 
prove  it ;  and  to  make  a  sudden  pop  under  water  to  be  emblematical  of  burial,  is 
as  far-fetched  a  conceit  as  any  which  adorns  the  Emblems  of  Quarles,  without 
any  portion  of  the  ingenuity. 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  6G1 

and  confirm  its  benefits.  The  circumstances  of  its  institution  are  expla- 
natory of  its  nature  and  design. 

On  the  night  when  the  first  bom  of  Egypt  were  slain,  the  children  of 
Israel  were  commanded  to  take  a  lamb  for  every  house,  to  kill  it,  and 
to  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  posts  of  their  doors,  so  that  the  destroy- 
ing angel  might  pass  over  the  houses  of  all  who  had  attended  to  this 
injunction.  Not  only  were  the  first-born  children  thus  preserved  alive, 
but  the  effect  was  the  deliverance  of  the  whole  nation  from  their  bond- 
age  in  Egypt,  and  their  becoming  the  visible  Church  and  people  of 
God  by  virtue  of  a  special  covenant.  In  commemoration  of  these 
events,  the  feast  of  the  passover  was  made  annual,  and  at  that  time  all  the 
males  of  Judea  assembled  before  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem  ;  a  lamb  was 
provided  for  every  house  ;  the  blood  was  poured  under  the  altar  by  the 
priests,  and  the  lamb  was  eaten  by  the  people  in  their  tents  or  houses. 
At  this  domestic  and  religious  feast,  every  master  of  a  family  took  the 
cup  of  thanksgiving,  and  gave  thanks  with  his  family  to  the  God  of 
Israel.  As  soon,  therefore,  as  our  Lord,  acting  as  the  master  of  his 
family,  the  disciples,  had  finished  this  the  usual  paschal  ceremony,  he 
proceeded  to  a  new  and  distinct  action :  "  He  took  bread,"  the  bread 
then  on  the  table,  "  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  them, 
saying.  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you ;  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  Likewise  also  the  cup  after  supper,"  the  cup  with  the 
wine  which  had  been  used  in  the  paschal  supper,  "  saying.  This  cup  is 
the  New  Testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for  you  ;"  or  as  it  is  ex- 
pressed by  St.  Matthew,  "And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and 
gave  it  to  them,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

That  this  was  the  institution  of  a  standing  rite,  and  not  a  temporary 
action  to  be  confined  to  the  disciples  then  present  with  him,  is  made 
certain  from  1  Cor.  xi,  23-26  :  "  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that 
which  also  I  delivered  to  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which 
he  was  betrayed,  took  bread,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks  he  brake  it,  and 
said,  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you ;  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had 
supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood ;  this  do  ye,  as 
oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread, 
and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  From 
these  words  we  learn,  1.  That  St.  Paul  received  a  special  revelation 
as  to  this  ordinance,  which  must  have  had  a  higher  object  than  the 
mere  commemoration  of  an  historical  fact,  and  must  be  supposed  to  have 
been  made  for  the  purpose  of  enjoining  it  upon  him  to  establish  this  rite 
in  the  Churches  raised  up  by  him,  and  of  enabling  him  rightly  to  under- 
stand  its  authority  and  purport,  where  he  found  it  already  appointed  by 
the  first  founders  of  the  first  Churches.     2.  Tliat  the  command  of 

2 


662  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

Christ,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  which  was  originally  given 
to  the  disciples  present  with  Christ  at  the  last  passover,  is  laid  by 
St.  Paul  upon  the  Corinthians.  3.  That  he  regarded  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  a  rite  to  be  "ofj!ew"  celebrated,  and  that  in  all  future 
time  until  the  Lord  himself  should  "  come"  to  judge  the  world.  The 
perpetual  obligation  of  this  ordinance  cannot  therefore  be  reasonably 
disputed. 

Of  the  nature  of  this  great  and  affecting  rite  of  Christianity,  different 
and  very  opposite  opinions  have  been  formed,  arising  partly  from  the 
elliptical  and  figurative  modes  of  expression  adopted  by  Christ  at  its 
institution ;  but  more  especially  from  the  influence  of  superstition  upon 
some,  and  the  extreme  of  affected  rationalism  upon  others. 

The  first  is  the  monstrous  theory  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  contra, 
dictory  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  whose  words  it  professes  to  receive  in 
their  literal  meaning,  as  it  is  revolting  to  the  senses  and  reason  of  man- 
kind. 

**  It  is  conceived  that  the  words,  '  This  is  my  body ;  this  is  my  blood,* 
are  to  be  understood  in  their  most  literal  sense ;  that  when  Jesus  pro- 
nounced these  words,  he  changed,  by  his  almighty  power,  the  bread  upon 
the  table  into  his  body,  and  the  wine  into  his  blood,  and  really  delivered 
his  body  and  blood  into  the  hands  of  his  apostles ;  and  that  at  all  times 
when  the  Lord's  Supper  is  administered,  the  priest,  by  pronouncing  these 
words  with  a  good  intention,  has  the  power  of  making  a  similar  change. 
This  change  is  known  by  the  name  of  transubstantiation ;  the  propriety 
of  which  name  is  conceived  to  consist  in  this,  that  although  the  bread 
and  wine  are  not  changed  in  figure,  taste,  weight,  or  any  other  accident, 
it  is  believed  that  the  substance  of  them  is  completely  destroyed ;  that  in 
place  of  it,  the  substance  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  although 
clothed  with  all  the  sensible  properties  of  bread  and  wine,  is  truly  pre- 
sent ;  and  that  the  persons  who  receive  what  has  been  consecrated  by 
pronouncing  these  words,  do  not  receive  bread  and  wine,  but  literally 
partake  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  really  eat  his  flesh,  and 
drink  his  blood.  It  is  farther  conceived,  that  the  bread  and  wine  thus 
changed,  are  presented  by  the  priest  to  God  ;  and  he  receives  the  name 
of  priest,  because  in  laying  them  upon  the  altar  he  offers  to  God  a  sacri- 
fice, which,  although  it  be  distinguished  from  all  others  by  being  without 
the  shedding  of  blood,  is  a  true  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the 
dead  and  of  the  Uving, — the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  were  pre- 
sented  on  the  cross,  again  presented  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  It  is 
conceived,  that  the  materials  of  this  sacrifice,  being  truly  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  possess  an  intrinsic  virtue,  which  does  not  depend  upon 
the  disposition  of  him  who  receives  them,  but  operates  immediately  upon 
all  who  do  not  obstruct  the  operation  by  a  mortal  sin.  Hence  it  is  ac- 
counted  of  great  importance  for  the  salvation  of  the  sick  and  dying,  that 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL   INSTITUTES.  663 

parts  of  these  materials  should  be  sent  to  them ;  and  it  is  understood 
that  the  practice  of  partaking  in  private  of  a  small  portion  of  what  the 
priest  has  thus  transubstantiated,  is,  in  all  respects,  as  proper  and  salu- 
tary as  joining  with  others  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  farther  conceived, 
that  as  the  bread  and  wine,  when  converted  into  the  [body  and]  blood 
of  Christ,  are  a  natural  object  of  reverence  and  adoration  to  Christians, 
it  is  highly  proper  to  worship  them  upon  the  altar ;  and  that  it  is  expe- 
dient to  carry  them  about  in  solemn  procession,  that  they  may  receive 
the  homage  of  all  who  meet  them.  What  had  been  transubstantiated 
was  therefore  lifted  up  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  adoration,  both  when 
it  was  shown  to  the  people  at  the  altar,  and  when  it  was  carried  about. 
Hence  arose  that  expression  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  elevation  of 
the  host,  elevatio  hosticc.  But,  as  the  wine  in  being  carried  about  was 
exposed  to  accidents  inconsistent  with  the  veneration  due  to  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  it  became  customary  to  send  only  the  bread  ;  and, 
in  order  to  satisfy  those  who  for  this  reason  did  not  receive  the  wine, 
they  were  taught  that,  as  the  bread  was  changed  into  the  body  of  Christ, 
they  partook  by  concomitancy  of  the  blood  with  the  body.  In  process 
of  time,  the  people  were  not  allowed  to  partake  of  the  cup ;  and  it  was 
said,  that  when  Jesus  spake  these  words,  '  Drink  ye  all  of  it,'  he  was 
addressing  himself  only  to  his  apostles,  so  that  his  command  was  fulfilled 
when  the  priests,  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  drank  of  the  cup,  al- 
though the  people  were  excluded.  And  thus  the  last  part  of  this  system 
conspired  with  the  first  in  exalting  the  clergy  very  far  above  the  laity. 
For  the  same  persons  who  had  the  power  of  changing  bread  and  wine 
into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  who  presented  what  they  had 
thus  made,  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  others,  enjoyed  the  partaking 
of  the  cup,  while  communion  in  one  kind  only  was  permitted  to  the  peo- 
ple." (Bishop  Tomline  on  the  Articles.) 

So  violently  are  these  notions  opposed  to  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind, that  the  ground  to  which  the  Romish  writers  have  always  been 
driven  in  their  defence,  is  the  authority  of  their  Church,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  implicit  faith  in  its  interpretations  of  Scripture  ;  principles  which 
shut  out  the  use  of  Scripture  entirely,  and  open  the  door  to  every  heresy 
and  fanatical  folly.  But  for  the  ignorance  and  superstition  of  Europe 
during  the  middle  ages,  this  monstrous  perversion  of  a  sacred  rite  could 
not  have  been  effected,  and  even  then  it  was  not  established  as  an  arti- 
cle of  faith  without  many  struggles.  Almost  all  writers  on  the  Protest- 
ant controversy  will  furnish  a  sufficient  confutation  of  this  capital  attempt 
to  impose  upon  the  creduhty  of  mankind ;  and  to  them,  should  it  need 
any  refutation,  the  reader  may  be  referred. 

The  mind  of  Luther,  so  powerful  to  throw  off'  dogmas  which  had  no- 
thing  but  human  authority  to  support  them,  was,  as  to  the  sacrament, 
held  ill  the  bonds  of  early  association.     He  concluded  that  the  body  and 

2 


664  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

blood  of  Christ  are  really  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper ;  but,  aware  of 
the  absurdities  and  self  contradictions  of  transubstantiation,  he  laid  hold 
of  a  doctrine  which  some  writers,  in  the  Romish  Church  itself,  had  con- 
tinned  to  prefer  to  the  papal  dogma  above  stated.  This  was  designated 
by  the  term  consuhstantiation,  which  allows  that  the  bread  and  wine  re- 
main the  same  after  consecration  as  before.  Thus  he  escapes  the  ab. 
surdity  of  contradicting  the  very  senses  of  men.  It  was  held,  however, 
1:^  Luther,  that  though  the  bread  and  wine  remain  unchanged,  yet  that, 
together  with  them,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  literally  received 
by  the  communicants.  Some  of  his  immediate  followers  did  not,  how- 
ever,  admit  more  on  this  point,  than  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
were  really  present  in  the  sacrament ;  but  that  the  manner  of  that  pre- 
sence was  an  inexplicable  mystery.  Yet,  in  some  important  respects^ 
Luther  and  the  Consubstantialists  wholly  escaped  the  errors  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  as  to  this  sacrament.  They  denied  that  it  was  a  sacrifice ; 
and  that  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  gave  to  it  any 
physical  virtue  acting  independently  of  the  disposition  of  the  receiver ; 
and  that  it  rendered  the  elements  the  objects  of  adoration.  Their  error, 
therefore,  may  be  considered  rather  of  a  speculative  than  of  a  practical 
nature ;  and  was  adopted  probably  in  deference  to  what  was  conceived 
to  be  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  of  Christ  when  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  instituted. 

A  third  view  was  held  by  some  of  Luther's  contemporaries,  which  has 
been  thus  described :  "  Carolostadt,  a  professor  with  Luther  in  the  uni~ 
versity  of  Wittenberg,  and  Zuinghus,  a  native  of  Switzerland,  the  founder 
of  the  Reformed  Churches,  or  those  Protestant  Churches  which  are  not 
Lutheran,  taught  that  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the 
signs  of  the  absent  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  that  when  Jesus  said,  '  This 
is  my  body,  This  is  my  blood,'  he  used  a  figure  exactly  of  the  same  kind 
with  that,  by  which,  according  to  the  abbreviations  continually  practised 
in  ordinary  speech,  the  sign  is  often  put  for  the  thing  signified.  As 
this  figure  is  common,  so  there  were  two  circumstances  which  would 
prevent  the  apostles  from  misunderstanding  it,  when  used  in  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  one  was,  that  they  saw  the  body  of 
Jesus  then  alive,  and  therefore  could  not  suppose  that  they  were  eating 
it.  The  other  was,  that  they  had  just  been  partaking  of  a  Jewish  fes- 
tival, in  the  institution  of  which  the  very  same  figure  had  been  used. 
For  in  the  night  in  which  the  children  of  Israel  escaped  out  of  Egypt, 
God  said  of  the  lamb  which  he  commanded  every  house  to  eat  and  slay, 
*  It  is  the  Lord's  passover,'  Exod.  xii,  11 ;  not  meaning  that  it  was  the 
action  of  the  Lord  passing  over  every  house,  but  the  token  and  pledge 
of  that  action.  It  is  admitted  by  all  Christians,  that  there  is  such  a 
figure  used  in  one  part  of  the  institution.  When  our  Lord  says,  '  This 
cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood,'  none  suppose  him  to  mean  the 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  665 

cup  is  the  covenant,  but  all  believe  that  he  means  tq  call  it  the  memo- 
rial, or  the  sign,  or  the  seal  of  the  covenant.  If  it  be  understood,  that^ 
agreeably  to  the  analogy  of  language,  he  uses  a  similar  figure  when  he 
says,  '  This  is  my  body,'  and  that  he  means  nothing  more  than,  '  This  is 
the  sign  of  my  body,'  we  are  delivered  from  all  the  absurdities  implied 
in  the  literal  interpretation,  to  which  the  Roman  Catholics  tliink  it  ne- 
cessary to  adhere.  We  give  the  words  a  more  natural  interpretation 
than  the  Lutherans  do,  who  consider,  '  This  is  my  body,'  as  intended  to 
express  a  proposition  which  is  totally  .diff'erent,  *My  body  is  with  this  ;' 
and  we  escape  from  the  difficulties  in  which  they  are  involved  by  their 
forced  interpretation. 

"  Farther,  by  this  method  of  interpretation,  there  is  no  ground  left  for 
that  adoration  which  the  Church  of  Rome  pays  to  the  bread  and  wine ; 
for  they  are  only  the  signs  of  that  which  is  believed  to  be  absent.  There 
is  no  ground  for  accounting  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the  dishonour  of  *  the 
High  Priest  of  our  profession,'  a  new  sacrifice  presented  by  an  earthly 
priest ;  for  the  bread  and  wine  are  only  the  memorials  of  that  sacrifice 
which  was  once  offered  on  the  cross.  And,  lastly,  this  interpretation 
destroys  the  popish  idea  of  a  physical  virtue  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  for 
if  the  bread  and  wine  are  signs  of  what  is  absent,  their  use  must  be  to 
excite  the  remembrance  of  it ;  but  this  is  a  use  which  cannot  possibly 
exist  with  regard  to  any,  but  those  whose  minds  are  thereby  put  into  a 
proper  frame ;  and  therefore  the  Lord's  Supper  becomes,  instead  of  a 
charm,  a  mental  exercise,  and  the  efficacy  of  it  arises  not  ex  opere  ope- 
rato,  but  ex  opere  operantisJ'^ 

With  much  truth,  this  opinion  falls  short  of  the  whole  truth,  and  there- 
fore it  has  been  made  the  basis  of  that  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  wliich 
reduces  it  to  a  mere  religious  commemoration  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
w^ith  this  addition,  that  it  has  a  natural  fitness  to  produce  salutary  emo- 
tions, to  possess  our  minds  with  religious  reflections,  and  to  strengthen 
virtuous  resolutions.  Some  divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
Socinians  generally,  have  adopted,  and  endeavoured  to  defend,  this  in- 
terpretation. 

The  fourth  opinion  is  that  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  was  taught 
with  great  success  by  Calvin.  It  has  been  thus  well  epitomized  by  Dr. 
HiU:— 

"  He  knew  that  former  attempts  to  reconcile  the  systems  of  Luther 
and  Zuinglius  had  proved  fruitless.  But  he  saw  the  importance  of  unit- 
ing Protestants  upon  a  point,  with  respect  to  which  they  agreed  in  con- 
demning the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome ;  and  his  zeal  in  renewing 
the  attempt  was  probably  quickened  by  the  sincere  friendship  which  he 
entertained  for  Melancthon,  who  was  the  successor  of  Luther,  wliile  he 
himself  had  succeeded  Zuinglius  in  conducting  the  reformation  in  Swit- 
zerland.    He  thought  that  the  system  of  Zuinglius  did  not  come  up  to 


666  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

the  force  of  the  expressions  used  in  Scripture ;  and,  although  he  did  not 
approve  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Lutherans  explain  these  expressions, 
it  appeared  to  him  that  there  was  a  sense  in  which  the  full  significancy 
of  them  might  be  preserved,  and  a  great  part  of  the  Lutheran  language 
might  continue  to  be  used.  As  he  agreed  with  Zuinglius,  in  thinking 
that  the  bread  and  wine  were  the  signs  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
which  were  not  locally  present,  he  renounced  both  transubstantiation 
and  consubstantiation.  He  agreed  farther  with  Zuinglius,  in  thinking 
that  the  use  of  these  signs,  being  a  memorial  of  the  sacrifice  once  offered 
on  the  cross,  was  intended  to  produce  a  moral  effect.  But  he  taught, 
that  to  all  who  remember  the  death  of  Christ  in  a  proper  manner,  Christ, 
by  the  use  of  these  signs,  is  spiritually  present, — present  to  their  minds ; 
and  he  considered  this  spiritual  presence  as  giving  a  significancy,  that 
goes  far  beyond  the  Socinian  sense,  to  these  words  of  Paul :  *  The  cup 
of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ? 
the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?' 
It  is  not  the  blessing  pronounced  which  makes  any  change  upon  the 
cup ;  but  to  all  who  join  with  becoming  aflTection  in  the  thanksgiving 
then  uttered  in  the  name  of  the  congregation,  Christ  is  spiritually  pre- 
sent, so  that  they  may  emphatically  be  said  to  partake,  xojvwvsiv,  iisrs- 
;^s»v,  of  his  body  and  blood  ;  because  his  body  and  blood  being  spiritually 
present,  convey  the  same  nourishment  to  their  souls,  the  same  quicken- 
ing to  the  spiritual  life,  as  bread  and  wine  do  to  the  natural  life.  Hence 
Calvin  was  led  to  connect  the  discourse  in  John  vi,  with  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per ;  not  in  that  literal  sense  which  is  agreeable  to  popish  and  Lutheran 
ideas,  as  if  the  body  of  Christ  was  really  eaten,  and  his  blood  really 
drunk  by  any ;  but  in  a  sense  agreeable  to  the  expression  of  our  Lord 
in  the  conclusion  of  that  discourse,  '  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you, 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life ;'  that  is,  when  I  say  to  you,  *  Whoso 
eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me  and  I  in  him ; 
he  shall  live  by  me,  for  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,'  you  are  to  understand 
these  words,  not  in  a  literal  but  in  a  spiritual  sense.  The  spiritual  sense 
adopted  by  the  Socinians  is  barely  this,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  is 
the  food  of  the  soul,  by  cherishing  a  life  of  virtue  here,  and  the  hope  of 
a  glorious  life  hereafter.  The  Calvinists  think,  that  into  the  full  mean- 
ing of  the  figure  used  in  these  words,  there  enter  not  merely  the  exhor- 
tations and  instructions  which  a  belief  of  the  Gospel  affords,  but  also 
that  union  between  Christ  and  his  people  which  is  the  consequence  of 
faith,  and  that  communication  of  grace  and  strength  by  which  they  are 
quickened  in  well  doing,  and  prepared  for  the  discharge  of  every  duty. 
"  According  to  this  system,  the  full  benefit  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
peculiar  to  those  who  partake  worthily.  For  while  all  who  eat  the 
bread  and  drink  the  wine  may  be  said  to  show  the  Lord's  death,  and 
may  also  receive  some  devout  impressions,  they  only  to  whom  Jesus  is 
2 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  667 

spiritually  present  share  in  that  spiritual  nourishment  which  arises  from 
partaking  of  his  body  and  blood.  According  to  this  system,  eating  and 
drinking  unworthily  has  a  farther  sense  than  enters  into  the  Sociuian 
system  ;  and  it  becomes  the  duty  of  every  Christian  to  examine  himself, 
not  only  with  regard  to  his  knowledge,  but  also  with  regard  to  his 
general  conduct,  before  he  eats  of  that  bread  and  drinks  of  that  cup. 
It  becomes  also  the  duty  of  those  who  have  the  inspection  of  Christian 
societies,  to  exclude  from  this  ordinance  persons,  of  whom  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  tliat  they  are  strangers  to  the  sentiments  which 
it  presupposes,  and  without  which  none  are  prepared  for  holding  that 
communion  with  Jesus  which  it  imphes."  (Theological  Lectures.) 

With  this  view  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  seems  mainly 
to  agree,  except  that  we  may  perhaps  perceive  in  her  services,  a  few 
expressions  somewhat  favourable  to  the  views  of  Luther  and  Melanc- 
thon,  whose  authority  had  great  weight  with  Archbishop  Cranmer. 
This,  however,  appears  only  in  certain  phrases ;  for  the  twenty-eighth 
article  declares  with  sufficient  plainness,  that  "  the  body  of  Christ  is 
given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the  Supper  only  after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual 
manner ;  and  the  mean  whereby  the  body  of  Christ  is  received  and 
eaten  in  the  Supper,  is  faith."  "  Some  of  our  early  English  reformers," 
says  Bishop  Tomhne,  "  were  Lutherans,  and  consequently  they  were 
at  first  disposed  to  lean  toward  consubstantiation ;  but  they  seem  soon 
to  have  discovered  their  error,  for  in  the  articles  of  1552,  it  is  expressly 
said,  "  A  faithful  man  ought  not  either  to  believe  or  openly  confess  the 
real  and  bodily  presence,  as  they  term  it,  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood  in 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.'  This  part  of  the  article  was 
omitted  in  1562,  probably  with  a  view  to  give  less  offence  to  those  who 
maintained  the  corporal  presence,  and  to  comprehend  as  many  as  pos- 
sible in  the  established  Church."  (Exposition  of  the  Articles.)  The 
article  as  it  now  stands,  and  not  particular  expressions  in  the  liturgy, 
must  however  be  taken  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  Churcli  of  Flngland 
upon  this  point,  and  it  substantially  agrees  with  the  New  Testament. 

The  SACRAMENTAL  character  of  this  ordinance  is  the  first  point  to  be 
established,  in  order  to  a  true  conception  of  its  nature  and  import.  It 
is  more  than  a  commemorative  rite,  it  is  commemorative  sacrament  ally  ; 
in  other  words,  it  is  a  commemorative  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of 
our  redemption. 

The  first  proof  of  this  may  be  deduced  from  our  Lord's  words  used 
in  the  institution  of  the  ordinance  :  "  This  is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood." 
are  words  which  show  a  most  intimate  connection  between  the  elements, 
and  that  which  was  represented  by  them,  the  sacrificial  offering  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  as  the  price  of  our  redemption  ;  they  were 
the  signs  of  what  was  "  given /or  us,"  surrendered  to  death  in  our  room 
and  stead,  that  we  might  have  the  benefit  of  liberation  from  eternal 


668  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTES.  [PART 

death.  Again,  "  This  is  the  New  Testament,"  or  covenant, « in  my 
blood."  The  covenant  itself  was  ratified  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  it 
is  therefore  called  by  St.  Paul,  "  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant ;" 
and  the  cup  had  so  intimate  a  connection  with  that  covenant,  as  to 
represent  it  and  the  means  of  its  estabhshment,  or  of  its  acquirmg 
validity, — the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  our  Saviour.  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore,  that  the  rite  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  covenant  rite,  and  conse- 
quently a  sacrament ;  a  visible  sign  and  seal  on  the  part  of  Him  who 
made  the  covenant,  that  it  was  established  in,  and  ratified  by,  the  sacri- 
ficial  death  of  Christ. 

As  it  bears  this  covenant  or  sacramental  character  on  the  part  of  the 
Institutor,  so  also  on  the  part  of  the  recipients.  They  were  all  to  eat 
the  bread  in  "  remembrance"  of  Christ ;  in  remembrance,  certainly,  of 
his  death  in  particular ;  yet  not  as  a  mere  historical  event,  but  of  his 
death  as  sacrificial ;  and  therefore  the  commemoration  was  to  be  on 
their  part  an  acknowledgment  of  the  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  and  pro- 
pitiatory nature  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  an  act  of  faith  in  it.  Then 
as  to  the  cup,  they  were  commanded  to  drink  of  it,  for  a  reason  also 
particularly  given,  "  For  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins :"  the  recognition,  therefore, 
implied  in  the  act,  was  not  merely  that  Christ's  blood  was  shed ;  but 
that  it  was  shed  as  the  blood  of  "  the  new  covenant,"  and  for  "  the 
remission  of  sins  ;"  a  recognition  which  could  only  take  place  in  con- 
sequence of  "  faith  in  his  blood,"  as  the  blood  of  atonement.  Again, 
says  St.  Paul,  as  taught  by  the  particular  revelation  he  received  as  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this 
<jup,  ye  do  show  or  publish  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come ;"  which 
publication  of  his  death  was  not  the  mere  declaration  of  the  fact  of  "  the 
Lord's  death,"  but  of  his  death  according  to  the  apostolic  doctrine,  as 
the  true  propitiation  for  sin,  the  benefits  of  which  were  to  be  received 
by  faith.  Thus  then  we  see  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  visible  token  and 
pledge  of  a  covenant  of  mercy  in  the.  blood  of  Christ,  exhibited  by  God 
its  author ;  and  on  the  part  of  man  a  visible  acknowledgment  of  this 
covenant  so  ratified  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  an  act  of  entire  faith 
in  its  truth  and  efficacy  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  con- 
ferring of  all  other  spiritual  benefits.  As  a  sign,  it  exhibits,  1.  The 
infinite  love  of  God,  to  the  world,  who  gave  "  his  only-begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  might  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life."  2.  The  love  of  Christ,  who  "  died  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that 
he  might  bring  us  to  God."  3.  The  extreme  nature  of  his  sufferings, 
which  were  unto  death,  4.  The  vicarious  and  sacrificial  character  of 
that  death,  as  a  sin  offering  and  a  propitiation ;  in  virtue  of  which  only, 
a  covenant  of  grace  was  entered  into  with  man  by  the  offended  God. 
5.  The  benefits  derived  from  it  through  believing,  "  remission  of  sins ;" 
2 


f 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  669 

and  the  nourishment  of  the  soul  in  spiritual  life  and  vigour,  by  virtue  of 
a  vital  "  communion"  with  Christ,  so  that  it  is  advanced  and  perfected 
in  holiness,  "  until  he  come"  to  confer  upon  his  disciples  the  covenanted 
blessing  of  eternal  life.  As  a  seal  it  is  a  constant  assurance,  on  the 
part  of  God,  of  the  continuance  of  this  covenant  of  redemption  in  full 
undiminished  force  from  age  to  age ;  it  is  a  pledge  to  every  penitent 
who  believes  in  Christ,  and  receives  this  sacrament  in  profession  of  his 
entire  reliance  upon  the  merits  of  Christ's  passion  for  forgiveness,  that 
he  is  an  object  of  merciful  regard  and  acceptance  ;  there  is  in  it  also, 
as  to  every  one  who  thus  believes  and  is  accepted,  a  constant  exhibition 
of  Christ  as  the  spiritual  food  of  the  soul,  to  be  received  by  faith,  that 
he  may  grow  thereby  ;  and  a  renewed  assurance  of  the  bestowment  of 
the  full  grace  of  the  new  covenant,  in  the  accomplishment  of  all  its 
promises,  both  in  this  life  and  in  that  which  is  to  come.  In  every 
celebration,  the  sign  of  all  these  gracious  acts,  provisions,  and  hopes,  is 
exhibited,  and  God  condescends  thus  to  repeat  his  pledges  of  faithfulness 
and  love  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  purchased  by  his  blood.  The  mem- 
bers of  that  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  renew  their  acceptance  of,  and 
rehance  upon,  the  new  covenant ;  they  publish  their  faith  in  Christ ; 
they  glory  in  his  cross,  his  sacrificial  though  shameful  death,  as  the 
wisdom  of  God,  and  the  power  of  God ;  they  feast  upon  the  true  pass- 
over  victim  by  their  faith,  and  they  do  this  with  joy  and  thanlis giving, 
on  accoimt  of  a  greater  dehverance  than  that  of  the  Israelites  from 
Egypt,  of  which  they  are  the  subjects.  It  was  this  predominance  of 
thanksgiving  in  celebrating  this  hallowed  rite,  which  at  so  early  a 
period  of  the  Church  attached  to  the  Lord's  Supper  the  title  of  "  The 
EucharistJ^ 

We  may  conclude  this  view  by  a  few  general  observations. 

1.  The  very  nature  of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  excludes 
from  participating  in  it  not  only  open  unbelievers,  but  all  who  reject  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  made  by  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ  for 
"  the  remission  of  sins."  Such  persons  have  indeed  tacitly  acknow- 
ledged this,  by  reducing  the  rite  to  a  mere  commemoration  of  the  fact 
of  Christ's  death,  and  of  those  virtues  of  humility,  benevolence,  and 
patience,  which  his  sufferings  called  forth.  If  therefore  the  Lord's 
Supper  be  in  truth  much  more  than  this ;  if  it  recognize  the  sacrificial 
character  of  Christ's  death,  and  the  doctrine  of  "  faith  in  his  blood,"  as 
necessary  to  our  salvation,  this  is  "  an  altar  of  which  they  have  no  right 
to  eat"  who  reject  these  doctrines ;  and  from  the  Lord's  table  all  such 
persons  ought  to  be  repelled  by  ministers,  whenever,  from  compUance 
with  custom,  or  other  motives,  they  would  approach  it. 

2.  It  is  equally  evident  that  when  there  is  no  evidence  in  persons  of 
true  repentEuice  for  sin,  and  of  desire  for  salvation,  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  Gospel,  they  are  disquahfied  from  partaking  at  "  the  table 


670  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  [PART 

of  the  Lord."  They  eat  and  drink  unworthily,  and  fall  therefore  into 
"  condemnation."  The  whole  act  is  indeed  on  their  part  an  act  of  bold 
profanation  or  of  hypocrisy ;  they  profess  by  this  act  to  repent,  and 
have  no  sorrow  for  sin ;  they  profess  to  seek  deliverance  from  its  guilt 
and  power,  and  yet  remain  willingly  under  its  bondage  ;  they  profess  to 
trust  in  Christ's  death  for  pardon,  and  are  utterly  unconcerned  respect- 
ing  either ;  they  profess  to  feed  upon  Christ,  and  hunger  and  thirst  after 
nothing  but  the  world ;  they  place  before  themselves  the  sufferings  of 
Christ ;  but  when  they  "  look  upon  him  whom  they  have  pierced," 
they  do  not  "  mourn  because  of  him,"  and  they  grossly  offend  the  all- 
present  Majesty  of  heaven,  by  thus  making  hght  of  Christ,  and  "  griev- 
ing the  Holy  Spirit." 

3.  It  is  a  part  of  Christian  discipline  in  every  religious  society  to 
prevent  such  persons  from  communicating  with  the  Church.  They  are 
expressly  excluded  by  apostolic  authority,  as  well  as  by  the  original 
institution  of  this  sacrament,  which  was  confined  to  Christ's  disciples ; 
and  ministers  would  "  partake  of  other  men's  sins,"  if  knowingly  they 
were  to  admit  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  those  who  in  their  spirit  and 
lives  deny  him. 

4.  On  the  other  hand,  the  table  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  be  surrounded 
with  superstitious  terrors.  All  are  welcome  there  who  truly  love  Christ, 
and  all  who  sincerely  desire  to  love,  serve,  and  obey  him.  All  truly 
penitent  persons ;  all  who  feel  the  burden  of  their  sins,  and  are  willing 
to  renounce  them ;  all  who  take  Christ  as  the  sole  foundation  of  their 
hope,  and  are  ready  to  commit  their  eternal  interests  to  the  merits  of  his 
sacrifice  and  intercession,  are  to  be  encouraged  to  "  draw  near  with 
faith,  and  to  take  this  holy  sacrament  to  their  comfort."  In  it  God 
visibly  exhibits  and  confirms  his  covenant  to  them,  and  he  invites  them 
to  become  parties  to  it,  by  the  act  of  their  receiving  the  elements  of  the 
sacrament  in  faith. 

5.  For  the  frequency  of  celebrating  this  ordinance  we  have  no  rule 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  early  Christians  observed  it  every  Sab- 
bath,  and  exclusion  from  it  was  considered  a  severe  sentence  of  the 
Church,  when  only  temporary.  The  expression  of  the  apostle,  "  as 
often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,"  intimates  that  the  practice  of  communion 
was  frequent ;  and  perhaps  the  general  custom  in  this  country  of  a 
monthly  administration,  will  come  up  to  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  institu- 
tion. That  it  was  designed,  like  the  passover,  to  be  an  annual  celebra- 
tion only,  has  no  evidence  from  Scripture,  and  is  contradicted  by  the 
most  ancient  practice. 

6.  The  habitual  neglect  of  this  ordinance  by  persons  who  profess  a 
true  faith  in  Christ,  is  highly  censurable.  We  speak  not  now  of 
Quakers  and  Mystics,  who  reject  it  altogether,  in  the  face  of  the  letter 
of  their  Bibles ;  but  of  many  who  seldom  or  never  communicate,  princi- 

2 


J 


FOURTH.]  THEOLOGICAL    INSTITUTES.  671 

pally  from  habits  of  inattention  to  an  obligation  which  they  do  not  pro- 
fess to  deny.  In  this  case  a  plain  command  of  Christ  is  violated,  though 
not  perhaps  with  direct  intention  ;  and  the  benefit  of  that  singularly 
affecting  mean  of  grace  is  lost,  in  which  our  Saviour  renews  to  us  the 
pledges  of  his  love,  repeats  the  promises  of  his  covenant,  and  calls  for 
invigorated  exercises  of  our  faith,  only  to  feed  us  the  more  richly  with 
the  bread  that  comes  down  from  heaven.  If  a  peculiar  condemnation 
falls  upon  them  who  partake  "unworthily,"  then  a  peculiar  blessing 
must  follow  from  partaking  worthily  ;  and  it  therefore  becomes  the  duty 
of  every  minister  to  explain  the  obligation,  and  to  show  the  advantages 
of  tliis  sacrament,  and  earnestly  to  enforce  its  regular  observance  upon 
all  those  who  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  "  repentance  toward  God,  and 
faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 


THE  END. 


i 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  II. 


PART  II. — Doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Chap.  XVIII.  Fall  of  Man— Original  Sin Page     3 

XIX.  Redemption — Principles  of  God's  Moral  Government  .         .  87 

XX.  Death  of  Christ  Propitiatory    .         .         .         .102 

XXI. Sacrifices  of  the  Law 149 

XXII.  Primitive  Sacrifices         .         .         .         .         :  171 

XXIII.  Benefits  derived  to  Man  from  the  Atonement — ^Justification  207 

XXIV.  Benefits  derived  to  Man  from  the  Atonement — Concomitants 

of  Justification 266 

XXV.  Extent  of  the  Atonement 284 

XXVI.  The  same  subject  continued 306 

XXVII.  An  Examination  of  certain  passages  of  Scripture  supposed  to 

limit  the  Extent  of  Christ's  Redemption     ....  361 

XXVIII.  Theories  which  limit  the  Extent  of  the  Death  of  Christ         .  380 

XXIX.  Redemption,  Benefits  of, 450 

PART  III. — The  Morals  of  Christianity. 

I.  The  Moral  Law 468 

II.  The  Duties  we  owe  to  God 480 

III.  The  same  subject  continued — The  Lord's  Day      .        .         .  508 

IV.  Duties  to  our  Neighbour        ....*..  524 

PART  IV. — The  Institutions  of  Christianity. 

I.  The  Christian  Church 572 

II.  The  Sacraments 606 

III.  Baptism 613 

IV.  The  Lord's  Supper 660 

Index  of  Texts               673 

General  Index 676 


TEXTS  MORE  OR  LESS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Chap.  Verses.  Vol. 

GENESIS. 
11        .     .     .     .     •     1     206,467 

3  22        566 

.     .     •     .     .     2  27 

4  4        173 

7        177 

6  5        67 

8  21         68 

9  6        536 

15  1         1  565 

6        2  257 

16  7        1  565 

17  1         411 

7-14 2  615 

22      2        179 

25    23        313 

49     10        1  184 

18        566 

EXODUS. 

3  14        1  466 

5  3        2  201 

7  11         1     157,172 

10    25, 26 2  201 

22  20         1  609 

23  20         486 

30     12-16  .     .     .     .     •     2  153 

33  19         314 

34  6        1  264 

LEVITICUS. 

4  21,29 2  164 

5  15, 16 154 

6  25        164 

15     31         155 

17     10,  11 153 

25    49        531 

NUMBERS. 

5  8        2  113 

6  24-27 1  470 

DEUTERONOMY 

4  7        1  566 

5  22        504 

6  7         2  553 

10  15,  16 627 

21     22,23 112 

23     15, 16 530 

28     15, 16 1  187 

30     11         477 

30  6        2  626 

31  29         1  185 

32  43        566 

1  SAMUEL. 
20      6        2  498 

2  SAMUEL. 

7  21         1  564 

8  7        198 

9  10        2  531 

19     19        

Vol.  IL  43 


Page.    Chap.  Verses.                               Vol.  Page. 
1  KINGS. 

18    24        1  565 

1  CHRONICLES. 

17  19    1  564 

JOB. 

5  7    2  68 

11  12    68 

14  4    68 

15  14    22,  69 

16    71 

20   4,  5  • 22 

31  33    22 

33   4   1  631 

PSALMS. 

2   7    1  531 

14   2,3 2  70 

32  1    226 

33  6    1  631 

51   5   2  69 

58   3    69 

72   5    1  605 

100   3    467 

104  27    631 

106  30,31 2  231 

110   1    .  .  .  •  .   1  567 

122   6   2  488 

PROVERBS. 

8    22        1  535 

16  4        2  370 

22  15        69 

29  15        ......  69 

30  4        1    479,538 

ISAIAH. 

6  1,  &c 1  470 

8  8        515 

9  6        578 

34  16        472 

40      3,6 497 

3        509 

42      8 506 

45  24        2  227 

46  5        1  586 

48     16        471,  633 

53      1,  &c 192 

JEREMIAH. 

18  2    317,318 

19                322 

23  5,  6 1  507 

2  226 

33  16        1  507 

2  226 

34  2        1  200 

EZEKIEL. 

28  2        1  513 

29  11         201 

44    27         2  113 

232      45     19        113 


674 


TEXTS    ILLUSTRATED. 


Chap.  Verses.  Vol.  Page. 

DANIEL. 

2     11         1  512 

HOSEA. 

6  7        2  71 

12       5        1  506 

JOEL. 

2    32        1  509 

HAGGAI. 

2      4-7 1    472,633 

MICAH. 

5      2        1  536 

ZECHARIAH. 

10      1        2  488 

MALACHI. 

14        2  328 

6        1  468 

2  14, 15 2  544 

MATTHEW. 

1    23        1  514 

3  3        509 

11         2  652 

17        1  541 

7  11         2  71 

10    20        .     .     •     .     .      1  629 

12  31         639 

14  33         597 

15  4-6 2  551 

18  18         ......  601 

19  4,5 23 

3-9 544 

13         345 

17-19 470 

20  15, 16  ....     .     .  364 

28        123 

22      1-14 353 

24    24        1  161 

26    28        2  130 

63         1  545 

28    20        5S0 

19        634 

2  613 

MARK. 

10    14        2  636 

45        107 

13  32        1  583 

LUKE. 

I  16        1    510,516 

35        554 

9     19         595 

47,48 2  636 

10    20        370 

18    13, 14  .    •    .    .    .     .  212 

24    47        105 

52        1  598 

JOHN. 

II         1     516,562 

3        588 

10        517 

11         527 

14        542 

15        476 

49        529 

3      8        .....     2  71 


Chap 

.  Verseg. 

3 

22,23 

31 

5 

18 

37 

6 

37 

64 

8 

58 

10 

15 

26 

29 

33 

12 

23,24 

37-40 

41 

13 

18 

14 

16 

15 

16 

19 

26 

16 

15 

17 

5 

9 

20 

22 

22,23 

2 

39 

38 

5 

4 

7 

35 

59 
8  38,39 
10  41 
13  38,39 

13  15 
38  . 
48 

14  11 
23 

15  21 

17  29 

18  9,  10 
20    28 

28    25 


3,4 

21 

5,6 
28 
10 

21,22 
24 
25,26 


31 

3 

4-8 
25 

6-8 
10,11 
12-21 
18  19 


ACTS 


ROMANS 


Vol. 
2 
1 


TEXTS   ILLUSTRATED. 


675 


Chap.  Verseg.                                Vol.  Pape. 

6  1-6 2  452 

3-7 657 

7  1,  &c 451,511 

18    72 

8  1    ......  72,268 

3,4 1  551 

2  454 

5-9 72 

17    267 

15,16 270 

30    355 

9  1,  &c 312 

5  .  .  .  :  .  1  523 
24    2  354 

10  13    .....  1  509 

19    2  309,310 

11  5    330 

6    252 

11  7    309,330 

12  12    ......  487 

14  15    293 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

12    1  601 

30    2  229 

2  8    135 

3  3    71 

4  7    374 

5  3    1  580 

6  19,20  .  .  .  •  .  2  122 

7  14    634 

10  9    1  500,501 

11  23-26 2  661 

15  35    460 

16  15    ....•-  369,642 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

3      6        1  638 

5      6        2  458 

21        111,229 

18,19 117,119 

7       1         450 

GALATIANS. 

16        2  353 

2  16        .-...-  619 
21        219,240 

3  13        81,112 

122 

19        1  504 

2  618 

21        240 

27-29 622 

4  4-6 270 

21-31 334 

5  2-4 618 

EPHESIANS. 

14-6 2  349 

7        114,122 

130 

9        608 

2  16        120 

3  4-6 367 

4  8        1  499,500 

11        i     ....     2  574 

22-24 13,  71 


Chap.  Verges.                                Vol.  Page. 

5  2        2  164 

25        547 

6  5        557 

3,4 550 

PHILIPPIANS. 
2      5        1     611,612 

4  6        2  487 

COLOSSIANS. 

1  14    1  623 

14, 15 591 

2  135 

16    1  581 

19    •  ....  2  117 

2  9    1  622 

10-12 2  621 

3  10    13 

1  THESSALONIANS. 

5  23        2  450 

2  THESSALONIANS. 

2      8,9 1  161 

13,  14 2  348 

16        1  601 

602 

1  TIMOTHY. 

2      6        2  123 

13, 14 23 

4  14        577 

6  14        1  583 

2  TIMOTHY. 

16        2  577 

9,  10 355,  367 

2    19        365 

4    18        1  605 

22        601 

TITUS. 

2  13        1  519 

3  7        2  266 

5,  6 653 

HEBREWS. 

11        1  632 

2        589 

3        622 

5        533,551 

6        602 

8        520 

10        579 

2  14        622 

3  6        551 

4  12        582 

15        623 

6  4-8 2  295 

7  27        165 

9     13,  14 165 

22-24 166 

10  26-31 295 

11  6        194 

4        174 

19        615 

26        1  499 

12  2.5,26 500 

13  8        579 

JAMES. 
2     19-23 2    256,257 


Q76 

GENERAL    INDEX, 

Chap.  Verses. 

Vol. 

Page. 

Chap 

Verses, 

Vol, 

Page. 

1   PETER. 

2 

2 

2 

113 

X      2 

o 

348 

H 

12 

177 

. 

266 
632 

4 
5 

10 

7 

113 

11 

1 

1 

472 

18,19 

2 

122 

2  JOHN. 

2    24 

110 

1 

1 

2 

576 

3    18 

1 

499 

JUDE. 

20,21 

2 

622 

4 

2 

374 

2  PETER. 

REVELATION 

, 

1    21 



1 

632 

1 

4,5 



1 

579 

2        1 

o 

294 

8 

578 

374 

587 

3     18 

1  JOHN.* 

1 

605 

17 

20 

2 

578 
606 

}      9 

2 

133 

22 

13 

1 

578 

GENERAL  INDEX. 


Vol.        Pa?e. 
Abel's  sacrifice    ....     2  173 

Actions,  quality  of, ...     1  5 

Adam,  relation  of,  to  his  de- 
scendants    .....     2     52,396 
imputation  of  his  sin  -     53,231 
396 
Adam's  fall  not  willed  by  God  =  427 

Adoption,  what,  .     .     .     .     -  269 

African  slavery 532 

Agency,  moral,    ....     1  5 

Angel  of  the  Lord,  phrase  of,  -   486,  505 
Angel  of  the  Church     .     .     2  577 

Archbishops,  origin  of,      .     -  580 

Arianism 1  626 

Ark,  dimensions  of  the,     .     -   256,257 
Article     XVII     of    English 

Church 2  409 

Articles  of  faith    .     :     .     .     -  596 

Astronomical    objections    to 

Scripture  answered    .     .     1  243 

Atonement, 209 

what,      ...     2  112 

objections  to,  an- 
swered,    .     .     -   121,124 
extent  of  the    .     .  284 

Augsburgh  Confession  .     .     -  409 


Baptism,  form  of,      ...     1 

infant,  antiquity  of,  2 
benefits  of,     - 

mode  of,     . 

nature  of,  . 

obligation  of, 

of  houses,  . 

of  John,     . 

of  proselytes,  .     , 

put  in  the  place 
circumcision, 

subjects  of, 
Baxterianism   .... 
Peasts,  clean  and  unclean, 


613 


of 


634 
644 
646 
647 
625 
613 
639 
652 
631 


620,  626 
629 
410 
171 


Vol. 

Pas-e. 

Believers,  true,  may  perish     2  286,  287 

Bishops,  differ  not  in  order 

from  Presbyters,     - 

575,  589 

office  of,  ....     - 

575 

succession  of,   .     .     - 

582 

Blood,  prohibition  of,    .     .     - 

172 

Body,  human,  affords  proof 

of  God's  existence,    .     .     1 

298 

Budhu,  religion  of,  ...     - 

21 

Calling,  what,      ....     2  352,  359 

Calvinistic  theories  .     .     .     - 

380 

Calvin's  opinions      .... 

381 

Casuistry •     - 

476 

Cause  and  Effect,  relation  of,  1 

275 

Causes,  kinds  of,      .     .     .     - 

276 

Charity,  active  expression  of,  2 

526 

source  of,    ...     - 

524 

universal,    .     .     .     - 

524 

Children,  duties  of,  .     .     .     - 

550 

government  of,  .     - 

554 

Christ,  acts  of,  proofs  of  his 

Divinity,     ...     1 

588 

attributes  of.  Divine,  - 

577 

death  of,  merits  of,  .     2 

135 

necessary,  .     - 

103 

propitiatory,   - 

102 

vicarious,   .     - 

106 

died  for  all  men     .     - 

285 

humanity  of,  .     .     .     1 

616 

pre-existence  of,      .     - 

476 

resurrection  of,  .     .     - 

151 

the  Creator    .... 

588 

the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 

Testament .     .     .     - 

485 

titles  of, 

505 

worship  paid  to,     .     - 

596 

Christianity,  conects  morals 

with  doctrines  2 

473 

difflision  of,    .     1 

232 

effects  of,  .     .     - 

234 

GENERAL   INDEX. 


677 


Vc 
Church  authority,  ends  of,     2 

1. 

Paee. 
596 

!                                                  Vo 
Episcopacy,  matter  of  pruden- 

Pag.-. 

in  censures    - 

600 

tial  regulation  2 

582 

in  discipline  - 

599 

remarks  on, 

575,  585 

in  doctrine    - 

598 

Eternity,  attribute  of  Christ,  1 

578 

government  in,  .     .      - 

573 

Ethical  justice      ....     2 

529 

spiritual       .     .      . 

573 

Evangelists,  what,    .... 

575 

persons  to  whom 

Evidence,  authenticating,  .     1 

92 

committed,  .      . 

574 

collateral,      .     .      . 

94,  232 

of  Christ,  what,  .     .      - 

572 

external,  .     .     .      . 

70 

Reformed,  what,     .      - 

389 

internal,    .     .     .      . 

88,  204 

unity  of, 

586 

rational,    .... 

92 

Churches,  free  associations,    . 

587 

Evil  spirits,  power  of,  .     . 

161 

laws  of  Christ  impe- 

Exceptions  to  moral  rules     2 

475 

rative  upon,      .      - 

58!: 

1,591 

Excomnmnication,  what, 

57-^ 

liberty  in  forms  of,    - 

596 

External  duties  to  God  .     .      . 

487 

share  of  the  people 

in  government  of,  . 

590 

Faith,  condition  of  justifica. 

Circumcision,  controversy  in 

tion, 

247 

primitive  Church  - 

617 

errors  respecting,     .     . 

250 

remarks  on,     .     . 

615 

imputed  for  righteous. 

Confessions  of  faith  .... 

597 

ness 

234 

Conscience,  right  of,     .     .      - 

539 

justifying,      .... 

240,  243 

Councils,  origin  of,  .     .     .     - 

597 

251 

Covenant,  Abrahamic,  .     . 

614 

not  mere  belief,  .     .     - 
objections     to,     con- 

259 

Deacons,  office  of,     ...     - 

576 

sidered,  

248 

Death,  eternal 

55 

Fall,  account  of,  historical,     . 

23 

of  Christ,  necessary,  .      . 

102 

effects  of, 

43 

not  unjust,   . 

145 

traditions  respecting,  . 

28 

propitiatory. 

102 

Fathers  of  families  invested 

vicarious,      .      - 

106 

with  a  religious  office,  . 

498 

spiritual, 

49 

Fear  of  God 

485 

victory  over,      .... 

457 

not  servile,     .     . 

485 

what,  as  effect  of  sin. 

48 

practical  effects  of,  . 

486 

Decrees,  object  of,    .     .     .     . 

391 

Foreknow,  to,  phrase  of,  . 

357 

what, 

423 

Form  of  God,  phrase  of,    .     1 

614 

Diocesses,  primitive,     .     .     . 

579 

French  Church, confession  of,  2 

408 

Dort,  synod  of, 

303,  346 

403 

General  tendency,doctrine  of,  2 

477 

Duelling,  sinfulness  of,     .      - 

537 

Geological  objections  to  Scrip- 

Duties of  children     .... 

,550 

ture     1 

248, 259 

of  husbands  and  wives,    . 

543,  548 

Germ-theory  of  the  resurrec- 

of masters 

555 

tion     2 

464 

of  parents 

553 

God,  acts  of, 1 

264 

of  servants 

556 

a  title  of  Christ,     .     .      . 

510 

of  sovereigns    .     .     .      - 

562 

attributes  of,      .... 

266,  267 

of  subjects 

560,  563  1 

demonstrations  of,  a  pos- 

v'c owe  to  God  .     .     .      - 

480 

teriori,  

demonstrations     of,     a 

281 

JEccixomicai  justice  .... 

543 

priori, 

331 

Egypt,  plagues  of,    ...     1 

147 

,148 

duties  we  owe  to,  .     .     2 

480 

, 

172 

eternity  of,    ...     .     1 

353 

Elders,  office  of,  ....     2 

576 

existence  of,      .... 

205, 263 

Election  and  calling,  what. 

310 

not  discovered 

eternal  and  temporal. 

338 

by  reason, 

270 

of  the  Christian  Church  - 

311 

faithfulness  of,  .     .     .      . 

414 

of  the  Jews 

310 

goodness  of, 

411 

personal  and  collective,  - 

312 

,337 

holiness  of, 

436 

three  kinds  of,     .     .      . 

307 

2 

89 

unconditional,  .    .     .      - 

326 

,.338 

immutability  of,     .     .     1 

398 

345 

import  of  the  word,     . 

511 

unto  faith 

351 

justice  of, 

439 

Emanuel,  title  of  Christ    .     1 

514 

2 

89 

-678 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


Vol.  Page. 

God,  liberty  of,    ....     1  404 

mercy  of, 435 

names  of, 263 

necessary  existence  of,    -  332 

omnipotence  of,     .     .     -  359 

omnipresence  of,    .     .     -  365 

omniscience  of,     .     .      -  371 

prescience  of,    .     .     .      -  375 

2  429 

perfect, 1  445 

proofs  of  his  being,     .     -  281 

spirituality  of,    .     .     .     -  343 

truth  of, 444 

unity  of, 336 

unsearchable,     ....  446 

wills  all  men  to  be  saved  2  305 

wisdom  of,     ....     1  405 
Government,  an  ordinance  of 

God  ....    2  560 
of  Church,  spiritual,  -  573 
in  its  pastors,  -  575 
resistance  to,  if  law- 
ful,        566 

share  of  the  people 

in, 590 

Grace  of  God,  resistible,   .      -  446 

Heathens,  case  of,    .     .     .     -  444 

morals  of,  ...     1  55 

religions  of,     .     .      -  59 

state    of    religious 

knowledge  among,  -  44 

fleylin,  Dr.,  defended,  .     .     2  405 

Holiness,  what, 486 

Holy  Spirit,  divinity  of  the,   1  630,  634 
influence  of  the,      -  220 
personality  of  the,  -  628,  630 
634 
procession  of  the,    -  628 
witness  of  the,  .     2  270 
four    opinions    re- 
specting the  wit- 
ness of  the,     .      -  271 
Husband  and  wife,  duties  of,   -  543,  548 
Hypostatical  union  ...     1  616 

Identity,  personal,    ...     2  467 

Image  of  God,  what,     ...  9 

Immutability  of  God,  what,  1  398 

2  492 

Imputation,  what,  ....  241 
Independent  form  of  Church 

government 586 

Infant  baptism 630 

Infants,  members  of  Christ's 

Church, 635 

salvation  of,      .     .     -  57, 344 

Influence,  employment  of,      -  559 

Jacob  and  Esau,  case  of,  .      .  313 

Jehovah,  title  of  Christ,     .     1  505 

Justice,  economical,      .     .     2  543 

political, 560 


Vol. 
Justice,  ethical,    .     .     .     .    2 

of  God,  what,     .     . 
Justification,  by  faith  alone,  - 
concomitants  of, 
explained    .... 

just, 

n^  at  the  last  day,  . 
not  eternal     .     . 
not    imputation    of 
Chrst's  righteous- 
ness,   

not  sanctification 
pardon  of  sin  .  . 
Popish  notion  of, 
St.  James  and  St. 
Paul  reconciled 
on  doctrine  of, 


Page. 
529 
89 
246 
266 
207 
132, 133 
263 
214 


215 

215,  253 

212 

250 


256 


Keys,  power  of, 602 

King  of  kings,  title  of  Christ,  1  526 

Language,  analogical,  .     .     2  167 
figurative,    ...  167 
Law,  moral,  subject  of  reve- 
lation,       1  9 

Liberty,  right  to,     ...     2  530,  539 

Life,  right  to, 529,  533 

what, 1  347 

Liturgies 2  '502 

Logos,  whence  derived,     .     1  568 

Lord,  a  title  of  Christ,  .     .      -  507 

Lord's  day 2  508 

Lord's  Supper,  a  sacrament,    -  667 

different  views  of,  -  662 

nature  of,    .     .      -  662 

obligatory    .     .      -  661 

Love  of  God,  duty  of,  .     .     .  481 

nature  of,  .     .      -  481 

philosophic  and 

Christian,    .     -  482 

Magianism 1  40 

Mohammed,  success  of,     .      .  232 

Man,  fallen  state  of,      .     .      .  206 

fall  of, 2  3 

liberty  of,      ....     1  430 

primitive  state  of,  .     .    .2  7 

why  created,      ....  17 

moral  freedom  of,  .     .      -  31 

effects  of  his  fall,  ...  43 

his  own  fault  if  not  saved,  -  S87 

Marriage 543 

ends  of, 543 

both  a  civil  and  reli- 
gious contract,  .  -  546 
Masters,  duties  of,  ...  -  555 
Memra,  title  of  Christ,  .  .  1  566 
Merits  of  Christ  ....  2  135 
Men,  duty  of  all,  to  believe 

the  Gospel, 287 

Mercy,  works  of,      ...      -  527 

Miracles,  definition  of,  .     .     1  73 

possible     ....     -  74 


1 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


679 


Vol.        Page. 
Miracles,  authenticating  cha. 

racter  of,     ...     1  75 

credible 79 

office  of, 91 

of  Scripture    ...      -  146 

objections  to, answered  -  156 

pretended,      ....  168 
Moral  virtue,ground  on  which 

Christianity  places  it,  2  481 

agency 1  5 

obligation 68 

2  476 

government     ....  3 

principles  of,     .  87 

law 468 

established   by  the 

Gospel    ....  469 

philosophy 472 

use  of,  .     .     .  474 

precepts,  reasons  of, .     .  475 

rules,  exceptions  to,  .      -  475 

sense 476 

Murder,  what, 535 

self, 534 

Mysteries 1  241 

Nature,human, corruption  of,  2  61 

Neighbours,  duties  to,  .     .     .  524 

Obligation,  what,  ....  478 
Objections  to  the  Scriptures 

answered, 1  236 

Omnipotence,    attribute    of 

Christ 587 

Omnipresence 580 

Omniscience 582 

Oracles,  heathen,      .     .     .     .  165, 174 

195 
Ordination  of  presbyters  from 

the  Jews 2  578 

Origin  of  archbishops    .     .     -  580 

primates     ....  580 

Original  sin 43 

Pardon  of  sin  not  by  preroga- 

tive 94,213 

Parents 553 

Parishes,  primitive,  ....  579 
Pastors,  office  of,     .     .     .     -  575, 587 

authority  of,      .     .     -  590 

Patriarchs,  faith  of,  .     .     .      -  185 

rise  of,    .     .     .     -  580 

Penance,  ancient,     ....  604 

Person,  what, 1  449 

Pharaoh,  case  of,      ...     2  316 
Philosophical    objections    to 
Mosaic  account  of  creation 

and  deluge 1  246, 247 

Polygamy 2  544 

Potestas,  SoynartKt],     ...      -  59  < 

iiaraKTiKT],     ...       -  599 

iiaKpiTlKf}^      ....  600 

Potter,  power  of,  over  the  clay,  -  319 


Vol.        Page. 

Power,  origin  of,  ....    2  560 

Praise,  duty  of, 507 

Prayer, efficacy  of,upon  others  -  493 

ejaculatory,    ....  294 

enjoined, 487 

family, 495 

forms  of, 503 

consistent  with  Divine 

wisdom,      ....  492 

objections  to,      .     .      .  491 

private, 495 

public, 499 

reason  of, 488 

right  of, 457 

what, 487 

whether  it  has  moral 

influence,   ....  489 
whether    opposed    to 

predestination,     .      .  491 
Precepts,  general  apphcation 

of, 475 

moral  and  positive, .     -  35 

Pre-damnation 392 

Predestination,  what,    .     .      -  358, 359 

origin  of,    .      -  389 

Presbyters,  office  of,     .     .     1  575 

of  same  order  as  bishops  2  575, 582 

Preterition, 392 

Property,  right  of,    .     .     .     .  529, 538 

Prophecy 1  86 

double  sense  of,  .     .  180 
objections    to    evi- 
dence of,     .     .      .  194 
Scriptural,       .     .     -  175 

Prophets,  false, 197 

office  of,     ...     2  575 

Propitiation,  what,   ....  113 

Reason,  weakness  of,    .     .     1  15, 69 
use  and  limitation  of,  -  95 
Reasons  on  which  moral  pre- 
cepts rest, 2  475 

Reconciliation,  what,    ...  117 

Rectitude,  what, 478 

Redemption 87,122 

free 127 

illustration  of  God's 

righteousness, .      .  131 

Regeneration,  what,     .     .      -  254,  266 

Religion,  natural,     ...     1  19 

corruption  of,  among 

heathen  nations,      -  43 

Repentance 2  96 

not  regeneration,   .  267 
Reprobation,  absolute,   con- 
trary to  the  Divine  attri- 
butes   341 

Resurrection  of  the  body  .      .  460,466 

Reverence  of  God     ....  485 

Revelation,  characters  of  a,  1  62,  63 

evidences  of,    .      -  70 

necessary,  .     .      -  9,  44 

55,  59 


680 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


Vol.        Page. 
Revolution  of  1688  .     .     .     2  569 
Righteousness,  imputed,  doc- 
trine of,  considered,   .     .      -  215 
Righteousness,  imputed,  Ar- 

minius's  opinion  of,    .     .      .  223 
Righteousness,  imputed,  Cal- 
vin's view  of, 221 

Righteousness,  imputed,  Mr. 

Wesley's  view  of,  .     .     .     -  224 

Rights,  natural, 529 

of  liberty,      ....  530,  539 
of  life,  .     .     ;     .     .     -  529,533 

Sabbath,  obligation  of,  .     .     .  508 

observance  of,    .     .      -  520 

recreations  upon,    .     -  523 

Sabellianism 627 

Sacraments,  number  of,    .     -  606 
different  views  of 

their  nature,      -  608 

of  baptism  .     .     -  613 

of  Lord's  Supper  -  660 

seals 612 

signs 611 

what,      ....  606 

Sacrifices 149 

a  patriarchal  right,  -  169, 173 
Divine  appointment 

of, 200 

expiatory,  ...      -  151 

human,  ....     1  60 

of  the  law.     .     .     2  152 

primitive,    .    '.     .      -  171 

types, 159 

Sanctification 450 

Satisfaction,    apinions    con. 

cerning, 137 

Scientia  Media 430 

Scotland,  Church  of,  Calvin. 

istic,    . 407 

Scriptures,  antiquity  of  the,  1  105 

credibility  of  the,     .      .  141 

genuineness  of  the,        -  110 

testimonies  to  the,  .      -  122 

harmony  of  the,  .     .      -  224 

manner  of  the,   .     .      -  231 

moral  tendency  of  the,  -  225 

preservation  of  the,      -  134 

style  of  the,    ....  230 
Serpent,  the  devil,     ...     2       38, 39 

Sin,  a  debt,  how,      ....  129 
impulsive     cause     of 

Christ's  sufferings,    .  108 

imputation  of,     .     .      -  53 

original, 3 

in  what  it  con. 

sists,    ...  78 


Vol.        Page. 

Slavery, 2  530 

African, 532 

among  the  Hebrews     -  530 

in  Christian  states  .  .  531 
Slaves,   duties    of  Christian 

governments  respecting,      .  531 

Son  of  God,  title  of  Christ,     1  527 

Son,  only-begotten,  ....  542 

Soul,  traduction  of,  ...     2  82 

Sovereign,  duties  of,     .     .     .  562 

Sovereignty  of  God  ....  442 

Space 1  335 

State,  intermediate,  ...     2  458 

Sublapsarianism 393 

Submission  to  God  .     .     •      .  480 

Suicide 534 

Supralapsarianism    ....  391 

Synagogues,  rulers  of,  .     .     .  578 

modes  of  worship  in,  578 

Thanksgiving,  duty  of,       .  507 

Traditions  of  the  heathen     1  35 

Trinity 447 

importance     of   the 

doctrine,   ....  451 
proofs  of,  from  Scrip. 

ture, 466 

Trust  in  God 2  483 

friendship  with  God, 

necessary  to,      .     -  484 
Truth,  origin  of,  among  the 

heathen, 1  24 

Types 181,  182 

Unity  of  the  Church      .     .     2  586 
Universal  charity,  source  of,  -  524 
active  expres- 
sion of,     .     .  526 

Vaudois,  opinions  of,  on  pre- 
destination    407 

Virtue,  what, 478 

Virtues  in  the  unregenerate    -  83 

Westminster  Confession    .      .  408 

Wife,  duties  of, 547,  548 

Will,  freedom  of,      ....  304,  435 
of  God,  source  of  moral 

obligation,  ....  477 
Word,  title  of  Christ,  .  .  1516,562 
World,    the    extent    of  the 

term, 2  290 

Worship,  supreme  and  infe- 
rior,   ....     1  608 
ends  of,      ...     2  .501 

family, 495 

pubUc, 499 


■■^^■'i 


